You've closed your mind to what they're saying because they work for the TMO. Reason would tell you that Nader's points are very much in keeping with the current thinking in Physics. For instance, Information below the Planck scale has no discrete quanta or measurable physical attributes. Information in this case becomes Consciousness itself.
As such, reason would tell you that Information or Consciousness can be understood as having the quality and attribute of thought. So, there was nobody else present before the Big Bang. There was only Consciousness which has three qualities of the Knower, Knowing and Known. IOW, the Knower knows Itself through its own Knowing. If the Knower thought that It's nothing, the Known would realize that It is the Knower through It's own Knowing. The collapse of the Knower is called the "breaking of symmetry" which started the Big Bang. Patterns of this dynamics were created and can be seen in the behaviour of the present universe and in our individual thoughts and physiologies. Specifically, the universe itself created the various stars and galaxies which resulted in the formation of planets, like Earth, which created plants, animals and humans. It is now expanding at an ever increasing speed towards infinity. Also, our physical structure represents the various sectors of the universe. For example, our head represents the sector of the universe in the constellation of Aries, as stated in Jyotish shastras. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Salyavin, You should see the video first before shooting from the hip in criticizing what Nader had to say. I watched enough to know that it was nothing I haven't heard before. As even John Hagelin admits, there is no grand unification because of what is now known about how the Higg's boson works. That's what science does, it comes up with ideas and then sees if they are correct with experiment. So why haven't they adjusted their shpiel to reflect this? They remind me very much of the creationists that tried to hoodwink us into believing that there are irreducible structures in nature, they called in Intelligent Design but enough people who knew more about it than they did managed to shut it down before they infested schools with religious propaganda. This is what Nader is doing here. He's using a few vaguely familiar sciencey terms hopelessly out of context to bolster an idea he has pre-decided is true because some guy he likved told him it was. No other reason. Having these ideas is fine though but you've got to be prepared to accept when you are wrong, and challenge them properly when they make no sense.You are being hoodwinked and I'm amazed a moden university let him get away with it but we don't know what the terms of his appearance were. Maybe they let out the canteen to radical thinkers every now and again. No harm in it but start asking difficult questions, that's how science really works. And so what if there was a unified field in physics, do you know what that actually means? It means that the strong and weak nuclear forces are working in some way with gravity. And that' it. Big fucking deal huh? Great for mathemeticians to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" but it won't affect your day whatsoever and it doesn't have anything to do with consciousness that I can see. The universe isn't some holistic whole but rather a chaotic jumble of tiny bits and pieces that statistically determine the matter we are made of. Introducing cosmic consciousness to explain our experience is swapping one mystery for a much larger one, and one that doesn't have anything in the way of evidence to lean on. I posted a news clip yesterday which shows the current thinking in physics about the source of the universe. The article states that information is the basis of the cosmos. IMO, this idea ties in with the concept of consciousness and the unified field, as MMY explained in the past. Why does the concept remind you of consciousness? Information in physics terms is simply when you can tell one piece of the universe from another. You are confusing things that aren't related. The article further states that scientists are trying to understand if this information can be analyzed in discreet quanta. IOW, the scientists are trying to understand the attributes and quality of this information as the source of the universe. As I said above. The universe is made up of tiny bits. What has that got to do with consciousness? But the questions that they are posing have already been addressed by MMY in his discussion of samhita of the rishi-devata-chandas. You should watch the video for Nader's explanation of the three in one dynamics of Consciousness or the unified field. This same dynamics caused the Big Bang and, for that matter, the creation of the infinite multiverse. Sigh. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Why is - presumably - someone from Stanford University introducing a mystical speaker with the legend "We've seen how nature is structured in layers with a unified field at the base". No we haven't, if there is one thing we know for sure is that we haven't found any unified fields let alone unified fields of consciousness. The term has no meaning anyway and where is the field generated from? Does it violate the laws of conservation of energy? Why isn't it detectable like all other fields are? All we get from Tony Nader (what no 'raja raam' today?) is a list of qualities that consciousness has that he thinks are somehow indicative of an eternal nature but none of them are! And the whole point of quantum physics is that it proves the universe isn't holistic but made up of tiny discrete units called quanta. That's what the word means not that all things are one or part of a field, the unified field of physics would have been like all fields and simply a mathematical way of working out where particles are most likely to be. They aren't real. And the best candidate for a unified field turned out to be wrong, it was falsified so why do they keep going on about it? Simple, because it's their only way of convincing people that there is some sort of scientific basis to their beliefs. They decided that the "vedic" way of looking at things had a parallel before the parallel was found and they didn't change it when they realised they were wrong. It's the very essence of bad science and they rely on you not knowing anything about it either. So why are Stanford University holding introductory talks into Marshy's vedic "science"? Can we assume it's part of a comparative religious studies forum? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Here's an interesting lecture Dr. Tony Nader delivered at Stanford University. He explained what happened before the Big Bang and why it occurred. Dr. Tony Nader - Hacking Consciousness at Stanford University, Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqLs2knMngE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqLs2knMngE Dr. Tony Nader - Hacking Consciousness at Stanford... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqLs2knMngE Dr. Tony Nader, MD, PhD (MIT, Harvard) reviews scientifically hard and easy problems surrounding consciousness in biology and cognitive science. He prop... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqLs2knMngE Preview by Yahoo
