What a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit. Im surprised that people by into this crap. I especially found it hillarious how he "spoke to a scientist once". There are so many flaws in his arguments and so many unfounded asumptions here that im surprised he got a book published, oh wait, america, no im not surprised anymore.
@DontMindWrongPerson ok genius ,lets hear you list the "flaws in his arguements and so many unfounded assumptions" in your own words or are you just another freightened jerk who knows how to insult but lacks the intelligence to put forth a credible response
@JamesJTraitz0:18-1:04 Misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory, which doesn't state anything about state of the universe prior to the Bang. 1:05-1:22 BBT doest state anything about this, you are neglecting the theories of general cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution by natural selection, to name a few. 1:35 BULLSHIT, science doesn't claim to explain everything, never has and never will. 2:07 Standard argument from ignorance, "I cant think of anything else hence my delusion is correct".
@JamesJTraitz Modern understanding of early universe (Big Bang) suggests that our understanding of time and space collapses at the singularity, hence the question "Who made..." makes no sense as causality doesn't apply under these conditions. 3:00-3:20 Electromagnetism is one concept read a science book please. 3:55 BULLSHIT, If you knew anything about science you'd know that matter interactions are not random. 40:00-4:15 No understanding of the principles outlined earlier, read up on evolution.
@JamesJTraitz4:26-End: And you are an idiot who doesn't know what constitutes life or consciousness, wiki the words. Energy has none of the attributes that consittutes either of those: Internal signalling, reproduction, awareness, concept of self, ability to express feelings. These are complex attributes, labels for complex structures such as living tissue or (in the case of consciousness) the brain. Energy is not complex energy is simple.
@DontMindWrongPerson Individuals like yourself rigidly hold to the traditional paradigm - usually out of fear and denial-freightened that there might be more to reality then what mommy told them. You are not even aware of what the implications are from quantum physics and relativity - much less the startling inferences drawn from the pixel like nature of subatomic structures...learn a little more, do some reading and let me know when you have something intelligent to offer
@JamesJTraitz The thing is, labels such as "living" or "conscious" apply to certain things in the REAL world, putting those labels on other things just because you like is not a scientific thing to do. Sure YOU can put the label "living" on energy if you want but then living means something else to you than it does to the rest of the world. If you substitute living with "God", which is what we all know you really want to do, then "Everything is living" and "God is everything" looses all meaning.
@DontMindWrongPerson I get your point; however I am saying that everything you perceive actually arises from and out of consciousness..I may have better stated that energy is aware...the belief that "God is everything" and "everything is God" is meaningless and is NOT what I'm saying..God is responsible for the consciousness/energy out of which everything is formed However God is more than the sum of his parts and has a reality apart from everything that exists
@JamesJTraitz You have no evidence to base your assertions on, there is no scientific evidence that the label "conscience" applies to energy. If you choose to put this label on energy you are re-defining the word to mean nothing. If the universe consists of matter and energy, which are two sides of the same coin, applying the word conscious to energy (and matter) means that this label now applies to everything, it therefore looses all value as it becomes indistinguishable.
@JamesJTraitz If God has a reality that is apart from everything that exists, God, per definition doesn't exist, and I agree that that is the case, though i don't think this is what you believe. But even if, for the same of argument, God existed outside of space and time, it wouldn't matter, because we would have no way of verifying or falsifying that he/she/it exists. And it would not matter because God would not be able to influence reality in any way, much less create it.
@DontMindWrongPerson Your assumptions are wrong. God is beyond existence..you are still trying to operate from a subject- object and a true- false dichotomy..there are realities beyond true and false. True -false pertains to the logos. The logos is 'smaller' then and contained within a greater dimensional reality. Our own souls 'reside' outside of space-time , yet influence space-time by projecting a 'portion' of our consciousness into it, thereby forming our bodies and brains
@JamesJTraitz That is as bull shitty as it comes, none of what you just spewed out is demonstrable in any way. It is wishful thinking at best, baseless conjecture at worst. The default position is that existence must be demonstrated and that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. None of those claims have been scientifically proven and i for one, doubt that they ever can be. Also i didn't make any assumptions in my last post.
@JamesJTraitz Im also not operating from a false dichotomy. Either a claim is true or it is not, there is no in between. Either some God(s) exist, or no God(s) exist, it is a basic premise of logic. God cannot both exist and not exist. x can not be both true and false.
@DontMindWrongPerson Not a "false" dichotomy ;a true/false dichotomy..ther are statements that can be BOTH true and false e.g. "an electron is a particle" "an electron is a wave" just as some infinities are larger than others - hence , logic and facts break down e.g. ther are an infinite number of even integers(numbers) there are an infinite number of integers.
@JamesJTraitz The electron example is bullshit because those two are not mutually exclusive. Logic states that you cant say "an electron is a particle and an electron is not a particle" that is what you are saying, "God exists and he doesn't exist" and that is contradictory to logic itself. x and not x can not both be true, but x and y can both apply to the same phenomenon (i.e. an electron can be both a particle and a wave, which it is).
@JamesJTraitz Also is didn't mistype when I said I didn't operate from a false dichotomy, you are claiming that the True-False dichotomy is false, it is not. As for you telling me that I'm not aware of the implications of quantum physics and relativity I find that laughable as I am a biophysicist and know more than a thing or two about quantum dynamics, general relativity and life. Also you have yet to give a responsible feedback to any of the many flaws i pointed out in your video.
@DontMindWrongPerson A true/false dichotomy is not false..at the physicallevel - the time relevent level - true /false dichotomies are indeed operational..True/false dichotomies are valid; but limited..totally invalid when you try to apply them to the implicate order
i like your videos mr.Traitz..and i like your bandwidth.one thing that will always bother me logically is to list all the variation(professions,peoples,pigs ,ponies,etc)of life and construe that although these are rare constituent resource wise any way differs from the rest of the known universe.i.e it is present and continuous and countable and capable of change and direction through all the various processes that organic and inorganic things must stream.Science is looking for god.
no true scientist would EVER state that everything can be explained by science. but at the moment, science is the best method to produce "quantitative truth models" which can be shared and further developed. scientists didn't kill the unicorns, they just found out that it's pretty safe to assume that they don't exist. ;-) so... if you make such accusations, then please name one real scientist who actually made such a statement.
why is there anything at all. There is not for if there were anything it would be everything. So if there is not ,what is the experience we seem to be participating in? Could it be inclompleteness of nothing itself. If nothing is incomplete because a total nothing with no center or edge would be one thing, is this incomplete nothing an actual eternal non energy
refracting off incomplete nothing with no beginning or end could this be an eternal in out ,on off, stop go, up down, hell if I know.
cmon guys..yes his understanding of physics is a bit off, but he still carries his point well...all he is trying to say is..how the heck could everything come into existance by chance...im sorry any one person that believes we are here by random chance, is really grasping desparately to find a way to disprove a higher consciousness of creation
For the cloud of dust to exist there has to be a Consciousness in which it exists. So Consciousness came before matter. Is there anyone that can refute that without sounding like a moron? ;-) Thanks, James.
I think energy could somehow be alive. A simple example is fire; it needs air, it can grow, it can die, it consumes other things that contain energy, it puts off heat, etc. Fire really fits the definition of life.... Well, except for the fact that it does not require water.
I completely agree. Since of course most scientists would agree that Planck time isn't part of the Big Bang theory. And that trees and clouds really don't have anything in particular to do with the Big Bang theory. But apparently clouds and trees are evidence for God.
He has some interesting theory i must admit... and some nice philosophical questions. But he's questioning alot of fundamental basics.... yeah in other words i reckon he's putting up good points but speaking alot of shit
Heres a twisted veiw on the universe.With your understanding of atoms broken down to electron,neutron and such with that broken down to its enregies and that enregy broken in its enregy and so on. Imagine this energy or energies dictating what everything before it is to be.This dictation leads me took beleive this cosmic (goo), for lack of better discription, is all interconnected but dictates how everything is separated and interacts......
The universe may actually be inner space.View it as a geode.What happenes inside the geode is influenced by what is outside.The inside could not exsist or become without the influence of the outside.Or one could see it as outterspace influencing something that is inside I.E.extra dimensional existance.The energies in any case dictate the influence of the outside or inside. Now i think i have gone mad....
James,recent experiences have left me asking the same questions you are submitting here,I am not a scientist,a mathematician,doctor,just an uneducated average joe. I have been looking for others such as your self.Why am i asking these question.are there other joes out there like me. What is going on with this i have no idea but i will some how find out.Where can i read /get your book.Keep up your work.
Brilliant.. I've been one of the few that has been taught what you are teaching here from birth. I think what you're doing is fantastic keep up the good work Sir...
we are the protons electron nuetrons. we live in a universe which is a cell of a cell of a cell of another cell in the grand scheme of things. miniscule and irrelevant as far as our reality is concerned
Actually, what you're explaining in the beginning is how a star is made. The Big Bang wasn't started by a 'cloud of dust'; there was no space for any 'dust' to occupy before the Big Bang.
Asking for an ultimate cause to something is just asking for trouble, it's an infinite regression; one could simply ask what the cause of the cause was and so on. Science doesn't attempt to explain WHY the Big Bang happened, it explains WHAT happened. Some people can't seem to understand that.
I'm sorry, but did you even read my second paragraph? Asking for an ultimate cause is a flawed notion, because it's an infinite regression. If you think that something created a singularity that made the universe, you can easily ask what created that being/thing that made the singularity, and then you can ask what caused the cause that made that being/thing, etc. It's outside the realm of science to ask what caused the Big Bang, and that's a concept some people can't get their brains around.
The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of {G-d} (whatever THAT is) is not based on the idea that everything which exists requires a cause, only everything which "comes to exist" must have a cause. A concept of {G-d} implies that THAT which is referred to as {G-d} is eternal, ergo w/o cause.
Sorry sir but your asking people to not ask the big questions of infinity.Yes you can go insane pondering infinity but asking questions is how humans figure out the meaning of life and evrything it contains.
it is invalid question: there was no time before the big bang, so we cannot apply causality to anything that happened "before" (or "outside") the big bang (cause and effect only applies within time). time does not work or exist outside our universe, which at time=0 was singularity. we cannot know what was inside singularity because known laws of science break down in singularities. no one created singularity, it did not start, it was not caused. it is the uncaused cause.
Leave it to the arrogance of science to conclude that there was no being prior to the 'singularity'/big bang . 'Prior' to the "big bang" Consciousness was present and THAT from which consciousness flows is the cause of the singularity and science's "big bang"!
None other than to explain how all that has manifested from that original singularity,from earthworms to philosophers,from the eye with it's vision to the design of the cell,from the mind of Einstein to the music of Mozart,from the uniqueness of a snowflake to the integration of the brain all was contained within that singularity
Some say that the more parsimonious answer is that no one did - it was always there. If you're going to resort to "well what came before that?" you're going to fall into a recursive trap.
There may very well have been something before that, but I can assure you it's not 'God' as most religions describe.
Grass is alive, but is it sentient?
What makes you think that energy is sentient, IF it is alive?
I just realized there probably aren't many reading this, and since we are going in circles I'll move on. My hope is for your readers to have the awareness to differentiate your speculation from actual scientific knowlege as it continues to advance. I hope they will take a direct interest in scientific skepticism (critical thinking) and not take current knowlege regurgitated with newage pseudoscientific attachments. Then whatever is useful in your ideas can be picked from the bs. Take care.
Thankyou for your participation.I have enjoyed the challenging dialogue that you 'brought to the table'I have no doubt that you are a highly intelligent and well read individual with a strong background in science.You are always welcome to contact me again in the future-till then I wish you well.
jonstewartfanboy,above,takes my words out of context like a clever politician.I say science IS authoratative within the realm of it's competence,i.e.the physical world.When science dismisses consciousness and soul because it does not know how to look-or refuses to, it acts like a fundamentalist religion,condemning as "anti-scientific" those who report valid experiences which don't fit science's prejudices.Quantum physics is dismissed as "quantum weirdness" because it upsets teir 'apple cart'
Apparently you mix the two realms in order to mislead the scientifcally unaware to gain cred. It isn't a prejudice, it is a method that roots out prejudices. Evidence is the great equalizer. It works by disproving poor hypotheses. Here you are resorting to sad appeals to a simile in order to distract readers from the failings of your claims. You make claims that have no objective evidence. Subjective experience of "quantum" pink unicorns makes them true? LOL
Wow, very well put out. after all, everything in existence is energy. correct me if i'm wrong but it seems religions good or bad deem energy to be either dead or alive. just like physical science, for analogy there is negative and positive acceleration. likewise this is concept can be applied to energy. thank you for this post. -kyle
I've addressed the point enough on the living energy claim which I think is unsubstantiated. On a broader point: to gain the benefits of a contemplitave practice one need not pretend to know what they cannot know. Sustained and displined use of an attentional practice can have profound impacts on your moment to moment experience and states of well being. This says nothing about whether a particular proposition about an object in the world is true or not however.
Ah, we get to a kernel of truth in your viewpoint. "Everything I have said has a basis in science", now its "Science needs to stop acting stupid!". You can believe in whatever you want, as long as you are intellectually honest about what you say. Currently, you aren't regarding things you pretend to know but cannot based on current evidence. Sadly, the public's ignrnce of scientific thnkng allows them to be duped by "reasoning" like yours as if it were more than "faith": speculation as truth.
"The true/false dichotomy employed by the scientific method makes science'blind' to greater realities.Science does not go to where the soul and it's spiritually based consciousness reside,beyond the light cone of space-time"
And yet you say this: "Everything I have said has a basis in science", which is it? Speculate as you will, but don't pretend to know what you can't as it is disingenuous. It's just the spaghetti monster after all.
O.K.,so your parents raised you on sesame street and you really love cookie monster,er,and spaghetti.Sorry you can't handle that I dare to speak about science's shortcomings-imagine how actual scientists feel.What I say is fact;in fact more valid then what you cling to.
This is my point, you claim to state a fact "energy is alive" in which you don't provide actual evidence. The spaghetti monster has as much evidentary support as your claim. You make the claim for it to be valid, it needs evidence. You can say you believe it on faith, but that's about it and it certainly doesn't make it true any more than the spaghetti monster.
You first assume there must be a who in the first place. We cannot get to the source of such expansion before we understand what followed. Many more fish to fry and you aren't going to simply make something up that cannot be tested and have it any more credible than pink unicorns. String theory is trying to unify all the forces but in any event there isn't a "consciousness" in it. Who knows what we will discover, but silly metaphysics without falsifiable assertions won't do it.
Science cannot account for man's subjective experience.Quantum physics ushers in a new paradigm wherein the scientist can no longer be searated from the observed phenomenon under study.Three dimensional reality does not and cannot exist without an non-physical observing consciousness(you and me)
Quantum weirdness is weird without a doubt. However, that doesn't leave one free to make up something arbitrary that is any more valid then fairies or celestial teapots. You simply take scientific observations and make up stories about what they mean. If science cannot (which is based on evidence), how can you possibly argue your answer has any objective credibility? I say it's the Spaghetti monster making quantum weirdness, big deal... we have accomplished nothing.
Read Wheeler,read Everett,read David Bohm,read and understand the implications of the EPR effect and the Clausen-Freedman experiments,learn about the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum physics as well as the work of Schroedinger. It is convenient to make the miraculous appear mundane by labeling with words/names e.g."Quantum weirdness" as if by assigning a name to something you have explained it.We,the observers,meta-program reality--science's state of denial notwithstanding!
There isn't enough room to write about all these things in detail, quantum weirdness is a catch all for anything "scientific" that hasn't been fully worked out yet to which you ascribe as "evidence" for your arbitrary explainations. It all comes back to "god of the gaps" in another form, say pink unicorns or energy is "alive".
Quantum "weirdness" HAS been worked out! Quantum physics is perhaps the most sucessful,consistent and verifiable ,both mathematically and experimentally,of all the fields of science.Fact:electrons moving apart at space-time distances continue to correlate their respective spins Fact:photons moving apart at the speed of light continue to 'communicate' thier respective polarizations Fact:all occurrences are statistically revealed potentialities. Fact:the velocity of your movement alters time.
You don't understand, when I say worked out I mean as to what causes it and how it works, why those and not others etc. It's like Maxwell's equations, they work but they were experimentally determined. The wave equation "works" but interpreting it is still in question. Yet you claim to have some knowlege that energy *itself* is "alive". That's the nonsense I'm talking about.
:Fact:photons moving apart at the speed of light continue to 'communicate' thier respective polarizations Fact:all occurrences are statistically revealed potentialities. Fact:the velocity of your movement alters time."
I know. Therefore "God" or "Alive" or some other metaphysical bs that isn't falsifiable? You "interpret" science to try and make your claims seem credible, but it is nonsense. I say wave/particle duality and quantum entanglement are due to the Spaghetti Monster, now what?
'Old' paradigm scientists would have us believe that the incredible splendor of biological and cosmological systems ,with their obvious intelligent arrangements, are the result of random admixtures of dumb and lifeless bits of matter acted upon ,quite conveniently, by the 5 forces.Now who is telling fairy tales! I say 'old'paradigm as there are many scientists that are 'coming out of the closet' and recognizing that there is a higher order of Being beneath and causing our physical experience.
Until there is direct evidence to the contrary, the parsimonious explanation is the best. That is, no unfalsifiable assertions about what is behind what we currently know. Your "living" energy is hogwash based on bad logic. Any hypothesis must be testable and any conjecture that cannot be tested and duplicated is not a scientific claim. So, if you lean on science 4 supprt, you need to adopt the principles of science to have any scientific valididty. Don't just cherry pick terms.
I take issue with pseudoscientific new age bs trying to dupe the masses pointing to science as if they were related. There are things we may never know but pretending to know things we don't isn't necessary to get along in the world or access alternate states of consciousness. Someday we may understand it as neuroscience and physics, but in the meantime it's ok to simply say we don't know yet. No need for fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Science lacks the capacity to find greater realities due to the narrowness of it's search and scope.Neuroscience and physics,by definition, examines only the material world and compulsively rationalizes away any evidence of non-physical consciousness.Most scientists as well as materialists such as yourself are fearful that consciousness is a priori to matter and form! Please read George Berkeley's 17th century classic: A Treatise Concerning The principles of Human Knowledge.(in Great Books)
And yet you lean on science as some kind of justification for your claims? You can't have it both ways. Claiming energy is alive or God exists is a scientific question, yet you now talk as if science is incapable? We used to think disease was supernatural but later learned about microbial life. You are at best inventing pink unicorns as true and disguising it as something else.
I am a fan of science and it's success in banishing ignorance and suffering.Science gets into difficulty when it ventures beyond it's competence.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Science is reliable and authoratative within it's sphere.The true/false dichotomy employed by the scientific method makes science'blind' to greater realities.Science does not go to where the soul and it's spiritually based consciousness reside,beyond the light cone of space-time
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Science is reliable and authoratative within it's sphere."
This is true, however you are suggesting absence of evidence implies "alive". I say it's the spaghetti monster and it is supported just as much by that evidentiary absence. You are merely speculating and trying to co-opt science to persuade the ignorant. People can believe whatever they want (elvis is alive, energy is alive etc), but that doesn't make it true.
"Most scientists as well as materialists such as yourself are fearful that consciousness is a priori to matter and form!"
Yes, that is the parsimoneous explaination until falsifiable theories can be devised and tested. We can turn off consciousness at will with drugs, brain damage shows all kinds of evidence for cognitive function. We don't yet understand what makes a brain "conscious" but it is under study and a fascinating question. Your answrs are no bttr than the spaghetti mnstr.
Define "energy" define " life" You are only seeing the "outside" of life. I am saying that energy is literaly alive. Counsciousness directs so called physical matter! Natural selection is not the motive force of what science calls evolution!
I agree with much of what you've said here, though I've not heard all of your presentations nor read your book. I agree because I've learned that what we call "matter", is a sort of "example" of the reality that exists "spiritually". That is, as the scripture says of faith, it is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Thus when I see, say, a tree, I see the tree as a manifestation of a reality from the realm of the spirit.
The problem with your assertions are they have no basis in reliable demonstration. I can claim whatever I want, but if it isn't consistant with experiment it cannot be trusted. I can say that consciousness is caused by a pink elephant dancing on a far distant teapot orbiting a star 10 billion light years from here. Does that make my assertion true? There are many that claim Elvis is alive but that doesn't make it true. You usurp common science terms instead of pink elephants to gain cred.
Of course you're wrong! Everything I have said has a basis in science,You wish to conveniently ignore the findings of quantum physics and relativity. What is your own thesis to explain Young's double slit experiment?! Let us here your theory re: the EPR effect.What say you about the Schroedinger wave function. Let me know when you have something real to say!
My response to explaining quantum phenomena is not "GOD" or any other untestable guess. It simply is and until further evidence based theory can be developed that can explain it deeper, it simply is unknown as to how the duality works or came about. It still being unknown is ok, positing something silly (like it is "alive") without coherent evidence to support it is not. Just because we see quantum weirdness doesn't mean it or energy is "alive". Quantum weirdness therefore pink unicorns?
Where is your evidence? Have you first redefined what "life" is to make it fit? How can we test your claim to show that it might be false. If there is no way to falsify your claim, you might as well say "energy" is an infinite invisble & unsmellable fart named "joe" that loves chocolate.
Definition: To possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.
You are confusing your terms and effectively arguing that since A (universe, termed by you 'Energy') includes B (Life), then therefore A=B.
What a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit. Im surprised that people by into this crap. I especially found it hillarious how he "spoke to a scientist once". There are so many flaws in his arguments and so many unfounded asumptions here that im surprised he got a book published, oh wait, america, no im not surprised anymore.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@DontMindWrongPerson ok genius ,lets hear you list the "flaws in his arguements and so many unfounded assumptions" in your own words or are you just another freightened jerk who knows how to insult but lacks the intelligence to put forth a credible response
JamesJTraitz 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz 0:18-1:04 Misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory, which doesn't state anything about state of the universe prior to the Bang. 1:05-1:22 BBT doest state anything about this, you are neglecting the theories of general cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution by natural selection, to name a few. 1:35 BULLSHIT, science doesn't claim to explain everything, never has and never will. 2:07 Standard argument from ignorance, "I cant think of anything else hence my delusion is correct".
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz Modern understanding of early universe (Big Bang) suggests that our understanding of time and space collapses at the singularity, hence the question "Who made..." makes no sense as causality doesn't apply under these conditions. 3:00-3:20 Electromagnetism is one concept read a science book please. 3:55 BULLSHIT, If you knew anything about science you'd know that matter interactions are not random. 40:00-4:15 No understanding of the principles outlined earlier, read up on evolution.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz 4:26-End: And you are an idiot who doesn't know what constitutes life or consciousness, wiki the words. Energy has none of the attributes that consittutes either of those: Internal signalling, reproduction, awareness, concept of self, ability to express feelings. These are complex attributes, labels for complex structures such as living tissue or (in the case of consciousness) the brain. Energy is not complex energy is simple.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@DontMindWrongPerson Individuals like yourself rigidly hold to the traditional paradigm - usually out of fear and denial-freightened that there might be more to reality then what mommy told them. You are not even aware of what the implications are from quantum physics and relativity - much less the startling inferences drawn from the pixel like nature of subatomic structures...learn a little more, do some reading and let me know when you have something intelligent to offer
JamesJTraitz 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz The thing is, labels such as "living" or "conscious" apply to certain things in the REAL world, putting those labels on other things just because you like is not a scientific thing to do. Sure YOU can put the label "living" on energy if you want but then living means something else to you than it does to the rest of the world. If you substitute living with "God", which is what we all know you really want to do, then "Everything is living" and "God is everything" looses all meaning.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@DontMindWrongPerson I get your point; however I am saying that everything you perceive actually arises from and out of consciousness..I may have better stated that energy is aware...the belief that "God is everything" and "everything is God" is meaningless and is NOT what I'm saying..God is responsible for the consciousness/energy out of which everything is formed However God is more than the sum of his parts and has a reality apart from everything that exists
JamesJTraitz 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz You have no evidence to base your assertions on, there is no scientific evidence that the label "conscience" applies to energy. If you choose to put this label on energy you are re-defining the word to mean nothing. If the universe consists of matter and energy, which are two sides of the same coin, applying the word conscious to energy (and matter) means that this label now applies to everything, it therefore looses all value as it becomes indistinguishable.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz If God has a reality that is apart from everything that exists, God, per definition doesn't exist, and I agree that that is the case, though i don't think this is what you believe. But even if, for the same of argument, God existed outside of space and time, it wouldn't matter, because we would have no way of verifying or falsifying that he/she/it exists. And it would not matter because God would not be able to influence reality in any way, much less create it.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@DontMindWrongPerson Your assumptions are wrong. God is beyond existence..you are still trying to operate from a subject- object and a true- false dichotomy..there are realities beyond true and false. True -false pertains to the logos. The logos is 'smaller' then and contained within a greater dimensional reality. Our own souls 'reside' outside of space-time , yet influence space-time by projecting a 'portion' of our consciousness into it, thereby forming our bodies and brains
JamesJTraitz 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz That is as bull shitty as it comes, none of what you just spewed out is demonstrable in any way. It is wishful thinking at best, baseless conjecture at worst. The default position is that existence must be demonstrated and that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. None of those claims have been scientifically proven and i for one, doubt that they ever can be. Also i didn't make any assumptions in my last post.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz Im also not operating from a false dichotomy. Either a claim is true or it is not, there is no in between. Either some God(s) exist, or no God(s) exist, it is a basic premise of logic. God cannot both exist and not exist. x can not be both true and false.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@DontMindWrongPerson Not a "false" dichotomy ;a true/false dichotomy..ther are statements that can be BOTH true and false e.g. "an electron is a particle" "an electron is a wave" just as some infinities are larger than others - hence , logic and facts break down e.g. ther are an infinite number of even integers(numbers) there are an infinite number of integers.
JamesJTraitz 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz The electron example is bullshit because those two are not mutually exclusive. Logic states that you cant say "an electron is a particle and an electron is not a particle" that is what you are saying, "God exists and he doesn't exist" and that is contradictory to logic itself. x and not x can not both be true, but x and y can both apply to the same phenomenon (i.e. an electron can be both a particle and a wave, which it is).
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz Also is didn't mistype when I said I didn't operate from a false dichotomy, you are claiming that the True-False dichotomy is false, it is not. As for you telling me that I'm not aware of the implications of quantum physics and relativity I find that laughable as I am a biophysicist and know more than a thing or two about quantum dynamics, general relativity and life. Also you have yet to give a responsible feedback to any of the many flaws i pointed out in your video.
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
@DontMindWrongPerson A true/false dichotomy is not false..at the physicallevel - the time relevent level - true /false dichotomies are indeed operational..True/false dichotomies are valid; but limited..totally invalid when you try to apply them to the implicate order
JamesJTraitz 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz Really? Of all the flaws in your arguments i pointed out, this is the one you want to defend?
DontMindWrongPerson 1 year ago
Its all alive, even the fabric of space that makes up the 'lattice' of 'matter construct' !
crystalearthful 1 year ago
looks like a mobster
POPsgot1 1 year ago
evolution not a science. for example evolution denied thermodynamic law,genetic,fact of fossil.
srkkroh11 1 year ago
i like your videos mr.Traitz..and i like your bandwidth.one thing that will always bother me logically is to list all the variation(professions,peoples,pigs ,ponies,etc)of life and construe that although these are rare constituent resource wise any way differs from the rest of the known universe.i.e it is present and continuous and countable and capable of change and direction through all the various processes that organic and inorganic things must stream.Science is looking for god.
dekekyo 1 year ago
Just absolutely brilliant, thanks for the answers I been searching for. God bless!
777WhiteLightning 1 year ago
@777WhiteLightning Thankyou
JamesJTraitz 1 year ago
@JamesJTraitz I think this person was being sarcastic.
bjm4idplayer 1 year ago
no true scientist would EVER state that everything can be explained by science. but at the moment, science is the best method to produce "quantitative truth models" which can be shared and further developed. scientists didn't kill the unicorns, they just found out that it's pretty safe to assume that they don't exist. ;-) so... if you make such accusations, then please name one real scientist who actually made such a statement.
dumpsky 1 year ago
why is there anything at all. There is not for if there were anything it would be everything. So if there is not ,what is the experience we seem to be participating in? Could it be inclompleteness of nothing itself. If nothing is incomplete because a total nothing with no center or edge would be one thing, is this incomplete nothing an actual eternal non energy
refracting off incomplete nothing with no beginning or end could this be an eternal in out ,on off, stop go, up down, hell if I know.
jobedied 2 years ago
cmon guys..yes his understanding of physics is a bit off, but he still carries his point well...all he is trying to say is..how the heck could everything come into existance by chance...im sorry any one person that believes we are here by random chance, is really grasping desparately to find a way to disprove a higher consciousness of creation
snakeeyes3883 2 years ago
For the cloud of dust to exist there has to be a Consciousness in which it exists. So Consciousness came before matter. Is there anyone that can refute that without sounding like a moron? ;-) Thanks, James.
kensho3 2 years ago
any Dust I've ever seen was generated by Wind or some turbulance -so First presence is before DUST,,..BREATH?
DYNODRUM 2 years ago
Huh?
kensho3 2 years ago
rIght thats what were all saying to the whole equation....
DYNODRUM 2 years ago
are you a Rosicrucian?
elguanteloko 2 years ago
no I am not
JamesJTraitz 2 years ago
oh, I am sorry! I seriously apologize.
elguanteloko 2 years ago
I think energy could somehow be alive. A simple example is fire; it needs air, it can grow, it can die, it consumes other things that contain energy, it puts off heat, etc. Fire really fits the definition of life.... Well, except for the fact that it does not require water.
stephenawolfe 2 years ago
When your understanding of science is as poor as this guy's, it's no wonder that you come up with nonsense theories like this.
He's spouting so much BS my screen's turning brown.
MightyCowM 2 years ago
I completely agree. Since of course most scientists would agree that Planck time isn't part of the Big Bang theory. And that trees and clouds really don't have anything in particular to do with the Big Bang theory. But apparently clouds and trees are evidence for God.
riseofatheism 2 years ago
philosofers and lovers? jajajajajajaja.
ssech6 2 years ago
He has some interesting theory i must admit... and some nice philosophical questions. But he's questioning alot of fundamental basics.... yeah in other words i reckon he's putting up good points but speaking alot of shit
Darkmetalrising 3 years ago
GOOD POINT MAN !!
ssech6 2 years ago
Part1:of (it)
Heres a twisted veiw on the universe.With your understanding of atoms broken down to electron,neutron and such with that broken down to its enregies and that enregy broken in its enregy and so on. Imagine this energy or energies dictating what everything before it is to be.This dictation leads me took beleive this cosmic (goo), for lack of better discription, is all interconnected but dictates how everything is separated and interacts......
ohwhataride 3 years ago
The universe may actually be inner space.View it as a geode.What happenes inside the geode is influenced by what is outside.The inside could not exsist or become without the influence of the outside.Or one could see it as outterspace influencing something that is inside I.E.extra dimensional existance.The energies in any case dictate the influence of the outside or inside. Now i think i have gone mad....
ohwhataride 3 years ago
James,recent experiences have left me asking the same questions you are submitting here,I am not a scientist,a mathematician,doctor,just an uneducated average joe. I have been looking for others such as your self.Why am i asking these question.are there other joes out there like me. What is going on with this i have no idea but i will some how find out.Where can i read /get your book.Keep up your work.
ohwhataride 3 years ago
Brilliant.. I've been one of the few that has been taught what you are teaching here from birth. I think what you're doing is fantastic keep up the good work Sir...
paiyn78 3 years ago
Thankyou!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
who made the dust..damn its a nice question!
brut88plus 3 years ago
Great!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
Your video is so great I want to order 500 books.
RichBeater 3 years ago
Now you are getting me curius,I want to leasen ferther about your conclusions.We see if my conclusions of these matters,match to yours.
Pantora10 3 years ago
we are the protons electron nuetrons. we live in a universe which is a cell of a cell of a cell of another cell in the grand scheme of things. miniscule and irrelevant as far as our reality is concerned
poppapump444 3 years ago
Actually, what you're explaining in the beginning is how a star is made. The Big Bang wasn't started by a 'cloud of dust'; there was no space for any 'dust' to occupy before the Big Bang.
Asking for an ultimate cause to something is just asking for trouble, it's an infinite regression; one could simply ask what the cause of the cause was and so on. Science doesn't attempt to explain WHY the Big Bang happened, it explains WHAT happened. Some people can't seem to understand that.
SolMaster 3 years ago
Agreed! However,Who/what created the singularity,that then became all that we know?!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but did you even read my second paragraph? Asking for an ultimate cause is a flawed notion, because it's an infinite regression. If you think that something created a singularity that made the universe, you can easily ask what created that being/thing that made the singularity, and then you can ask what caused the cause that made that being/thing, etc. It's outside the realm of science to ask what caused the Big Bang, and that's a concept some people can't get their brains around.
SolMaster 3 years ago 2
The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of {G-d} (whatever THAT is) is not based on the idea that everything which exists requires a cause, only everything which "comes to exist" must have a cause. A concept of {G-d} implies that THAT which is referred to as {G-d} is eternal, ergo w/o cause.
carlonrobbins 3 years ago
Sorry sir but your asking people to not ask the big questions of infinity.Yes you can go insane pondering infinity but asking questions is how humans figure out the meaning of life and evrything it contains.
ohwhataride 3 years ago
it is invalid question: there was no time before the big bang, so we cannot apply causality to anything that happened "before" (or "outside") the big bang (cause and effect only applies within time). time does not work or exist outside our universe, which at time=0 was singularity. we cannot know what was inside singularity because known laws of science break down in singularities. no one created singularity, it did not start, it was not caused. it is the uncaused cause.
a2tis 3 years ago
Leave it to the arrogance of science to conclude that there was no being prior to the 'singularity'/big bang . 'Prior' to the "big bang" Consciousness was present and THAT from which consciousness flows is the cause of the singularity and science's "big bang"!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
no, there is no evidence or reason to believe consciousness was present prior the big bang.
a2tis 3 years ago
None other than to explain how all that has manifested from that original singularity,from earthworms to philosophers,from the eye with it's vision to the design of the cell,from the mind of Einstein to the music of Mozart,from the uniqueness of a snowflake to the integration of the brain all was contained within that singularity
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
"Who created the cloud of dust?" - James
Some say that the more parsimonious answer is that no one did - it was always there. If you're going to resort to "well what came before that?" you're going to fall into a recursive trap.
There may very well have been something before that, but I can assure you it's not 'God' as most religions describe.
Grass is alive, but is it sentient?
What makes you think that energy is sentient, IF it is alive?
Vebroveromas 3 years ago
"always there"? What do you mean by "always"?This cloud of dust was formed into everything you think and everything you dream!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
can you play piano?
GerhardFourie 3 years ago
No. My wife and both daughters play
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
I just realized there probably aren't many reading this, and since we are going in circles I'll move on. My hope is for your readers to have the awareness to differentiate your speculation from actual scientific knowlege as it continues to advance. I hope they will take a direct interest in scientific skepticism (critical thinking) and not take current knowlege regurgitated with newage pseudoscientific attachments. Then whatever is useful in your ideas can be picked from the bs. Take care.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Thankyou for your participation.I have enjoyed the challenging dialogue that you 'brought to the table'I have no doubt that you are a highly intelligent and well read individual with a strong background in science.You are always welcome to contact me again in the future-till then I wish you well.
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
jonstewartfanboy,above,takes my words out of context like a clever politician.I say science IS authoratative within the realm of it's competence,i.e.the physical world.When science dismisses consciousness and soul because it does not know how to look-or refuses to, it acts like a fundamentalist religion,condemning as "anti-scientific" those who report valid experiences which don't fit science's prejudices.Quantum physics is dismissed as "quantum weirdness" because it upsets teir 'apple cart'
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
Apparently you mix the two realms in order to mislead the scientifcally unaware to gain cred. It isn't a prejudice, it is a method that roots out prejudices. Evidence is the great equalizer. It works by disproving poor hypotheses. Here you are resorting to sad appeals to a simile in order to distract readers from the failings of your claims. You make claims that have no objective evidence. Subjective experience of "quantum" pink unicorns makes them true? LOL
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Wow, very well put out. after all, everything in existence is energy. correct me if i'm wrong but it seems religions good or bad deem energy to be either dead or alive. just like physical science, for analogy there is negative and positive acceleration. likewise this is concept can be applied to energy. thank you for this post. -kyle
vseae15o 3 years ago
Yes i've also notice scientics seem to get irritated if you upset their apple cart.
ohwhataride 3 years ago
I've addressed the point enough on the living energy claim which I think is unsubstantiated. On a broader point: to gain the benefits of a contemplitave practice one need not pretend to know what they cannot know. Sustained and displined use of an attentional practice can have profound impacts on your moment to moment experience and states of well being. This says nothing about whether a particular proposition about an object in the world is true or not however.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Every thing you know has come thru your consciousness..A world without consciousness is non-existant.Science needs to stop acting stupid!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
Ah, we get to a kernel of truth in your viewpoint. "Everything I have said has a basis in science", now its "Science needs to stop acting stupid!". You can believe in whatever you want, as long as you are intellectually honest about what you say. Currently, you aren't regarding things you pretend to know but cannot based on current evidence. Sadly, the public's ignrnce of scientific thnkng allows them to be duped by "reasoning" like yours as if it were more than "faith": speculation as truth.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
"The true/false dichotomy employed by the scientific method makes science'blind' to greater realities.Science does not go to where the soul and it's spiritually based consciousness reside,beyond the light cone of space-time"
And yet you say this: "Everything I have said has a basis in science", which is it? Speculate as you will, but don't pretend to know what you can't as it is disingenuous. It's just the spaghetti monster after all.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
O.K.,so your parents raised you on sesame street and you really love cookie monster,er,and spaghetti.Sorry you can't handle that I dare to speak about science's shortcomings-imagine how actual scientists feel.What I say is fact;in fact more valid then what you cling to.
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
This is my point, you claim to state a fact "energy is alive" in which you don't provide actual evidence. The spaghetti monster has as much evidentary support as your claim. You make the claim for it to be valid, it needs evidence. You can say you believe it on faith, but that's about it and it certainly doesn't make it true any more than the spaghetti monster.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Poor boy,sounds like your afraid someone is shaking up you neatly order box of things(life).Its ok we understand.
ohwhataride 3 years ago
This comment was directed at jonstewatfanboy
ohwhataride 3 years ago
the big bang didnt explode it just expanded
legna28 4 years ago
Who expanded it?!
JamesJTraitz 4 years ago
You first assume there must be a who in the first place. We cannot get to the source of such expansion before we understand what followed. Many more fish to fry and you aren't going to simply make something up that cannot be tested and have it any more credible than pink unicorns. String theory is trying to unify all the forces but in any event there isn't a "consciousness" in it. Who knows what we will discover, but silly metaphysics without falsifiable assertions won't do it.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Science cannot account for man's subjective experience.Quantum physics ushers in a new paradigm wherein the scientist can no longer be searated from the observed phenomenon under study.Three dimensional reality does not and cannot exist without an non-physical observing consciousness(you and me)
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
Quantum weirdness is weird without a doubt. However, that doesn't leave one free to make up something arbitrary that is any more valid then fairies or celestial teapots. You simply take scientific observations and make up stories about what they mean. If science cannot (which is based on evidence), how can you possibly argue your answer has any objective credibility? I say it's the Spaghetti monster making quantum weirdness, big deal... we have accomplished nothing.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Read Wheeler,read Everett,read David Bohm,read and understand the implications of the EPR effect and the Clausen-Freedman experiments,learn about the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum physics as well as the work of Schroedinger. It is convenient to make the miraculous appear mundane by labeling with words/names e.g."Quantum weirdness" as if by assigning a name to something you have explained it.We,the observers,meta-program reality--science's state of denial notwithstanding!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
There isn't enough room to write about all these things in detail, quantum weirdness is a catch all for anything "scientific" that hasn't been fully worked out yet to which you ascribe as "evidence" for your arbitrary explainations. It all comes back to "god of the gaps" in another form, say pink unicorns or energy is "alive".
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Quantum "weirdness" HAS been worked out! Quantum physics is perhaps the most sucessful,consistent and verifiable ,both mathematically and experimentally,of all the fields of science.Fact:electrons moving apart at space-time distances continue to correlate their respective spins Fact:photons moving apart at the speed of light continue to 'communicate' thier respective polarizations Fact:all occurrences are statistically revealed potentialities. Fact:the velocity of your movement alters time.
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
You don't understand, when I say worked out I mean as to what causes it and how it works, why those and not others etc. It's like Maxwell's equations, they work but they were experimentally determined. The wave equation "works" but interpreting it is still in question. Yet you claim to have some knowlege that energy *itself* is "alive". That's the nonsense I'm talking about.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
:Fact:photons moving apart at the speed of light continue to 'communicate' thier respective polarizations Fact:all occurrences are statistically revealed potentialities. Fact:the velocity of your movement alters time."
I know. Therefore "God" or "Alive" or some other metaphysical bs that isn't falsifiable? You "interpret" science to try and make your claims seem credible, but it is nonsense. I say wave/particle duality and quantum entanglement are due to the Spaghetti Monster, now what?
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
'Old' paradigm scientists would have us believe that the incredible splendor of biological and cosmological systems ,with their obvious intelligent arrangements, are the result of random admixtures of dumb and lifeless bits of matter acted upon ,quite conveniently, by the 5 forces.Now who is telling fairy tales! I say 'old'paradigm as there are many scientists that are 'coming out of the closet' and recognizing that there is a higher order of Being beneath and causing our physical experience.
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
Until there is direct evidence to the contrary, the parsimonious explanation is the best. That is, no unfalsifiable assertions about what is behind what we currently know. Your "living" energy is hogwash based on bad logic. Any hypothesis must be testable and any conjecture that cannot be tested and duplicated is not a scientific claim. So, if you lean on science 4 supprt, you need to adopt the principles of science to have any scientific valididty. Don't just cherry pick terms.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
I take issue with pseudoscientific new age bs trying to dupe the masses pointing to science as if they were related. There are things we may never know but pretending to know things we don't isn't necessary to get along in the world or access alternate states of consciousness. Someday we may understand it as neuroscience and physics, but in the meantime it's ok to simply say we don't know yet. No need for fairies at the bottom of the garden.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Science lacks the capacity to find greater realities due to the narrowness of it's search and scope.Neuroscience and physics,by definition, examines only the material world and compulsively rationalizes away any evidence of non-physical consciousness.Most scientists as well as materialists such as yourself are fearful that consciousness is a priori to matter and form! Please read George Berkeley's 17th century classic: A Treatise Concerning The principles of Human Knowledge.(in Great Books)
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
And yet you lean on science as some kind of justification for your claims? You can't have it both ways. Claiming energy is alive or God exists is a scientific question, yet you now talk as if science is incapable? We used to think disease was supernatural but later learned about microbial life. You are at best inventing pink unicorns as true and disguising it as something else.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
I am a fan of science and it's success in banishing ignorance and suffering.Science gets into difficulty when it ventures beyond it's competence.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Science is reliable and authoratative within it's sphere.The true/false dichotomy employed by the scientific method makes science'blind' to greater realities.Science does not go to where the soul and it's spiritually based consciousness reside,beyond the light cone of space-time
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Science is reliable and authoratative within it's sphere."
This is true, however you are suggesting absence of evidence implies "alive". I say it's the spaghetti monster and it is supported just as much by that evidentiary absence. You are merely speculating and trying to co-opt science to persuade the ignorant. People can believe whatever they want (elvis is alive, energy is alive etc), but that doesn't make it true.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
"Most scientists as well as materialists such as yourself are fearful that consciousness is a priori to matter and form!"
Yes, that is the parsimoneous explaination until falsifiable theories can be devised and tested. We can turn off consciousness at will with drugs, brain damage shows all kinds of evidence for cognitive function. We don't yet understand what makes a brain "conscious" but it is under study and a fascinating question. Your answrs are no bttr than the spaghetti mnstr.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Science will never understand consciousness because it knows not where to look!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
Define "energy" define " life" You are only seeing the "outside" of life. I am saying that energy is literaly alive. Counsciousness directs so called physical matter! Natural selection is not the motive force of what science calls evolution!
JamesJTraitz 5 years ago
I agree with much of what you've said here, though I've not heard all of your presentations nor read your book. I agree because I've learned that what we call "matter", is a sort of "example" of the reality that exists "spiritually". That is, as the scripture says of faith, it is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Thus when I see, say, a tree, I see the tree as a manifestation of a reality from the realm of the spirit.
Bluezdog 4 years ago
You are correct.Everything you see is the 'physical' projection of a 'larger'dimension of reality!
JamesJTraitz 4 years ago
The problem with your assertions are they have no basis in reliable demonstration. I can claim whatever I want, but if it isn't consistant with experiment it cannot be trusted. I can say that consciousness is caused by a pink elephant dancing on a far distant teapot orbiting a star 10 billion light years from here. Does that make my assertion true? There are many that claim Elvis is alive but that doesn't make it true. You usurp common science terms instead of pink elephants to gain cred.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Of course you're wrong! Everything I have said has a basis in science,You wish to conveniently ignore the findings of quantum physics and relativity. What is your own thesis to explain Young's double slit experiment?! Let us here your theory re: the EPR effect.What say you about the Schroedinger wave function. Let me know when you have something real to say!
JamesJTraitz 3 years ago
My response to explaining quantum phenomena is not "GOD" or any other untestable guess. It simply is and until further evidence based theory can be developed that can explain it deeper, it simply is unknown as to how the duality works or came about. It still being unknown is ok, positing something silly (like it is "alive") without coherent evidence to support it is not. Just because we see quantum weirdness doesn't mean it or energy is "alive". Quantum weirdness therefore pink unicorns?
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Where is your evidence? Have you first redefined what "life" is to make it fit? How can we test your claim to show that it might be false. If there is no way to falsify your claim, you might as well say "energy" is an infinite invisble & unsmellable fart named "joe" that loves chocolate.
jonstewartfanboy 3 years ago
Alive.
Definition: To possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.
You are confusing your terms and effectively arguing that since A (universe, termed by you 'Energy') includes B (Life), then therefore A=B.
Egg09Seed 5 years ago
energy is composed of consciousness, that is energy, it's information, matter is condensed energy, we have a conscious, we're like....in the MATRIX!
bhn45r 4 years ago