I once attended a workshop where the relationship between words, thoughts and even music - to forms of water crystals was extensively discussed.

Is it possible that indeed our words and thoughts do influence the shapes of such things as water crystals? If they do, surely this should have profound implications for the mind of the strictly materialist atheist and should provoke a rethinking of one's entire worldview?

Here are some links on the work of Japanese reseacher - Masaru Emnoto, who claims that indeed water crystals are affected by words and thoughts -

http://www.unitedearth.com.au/watercrystals.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnbZN54IZNE

http://www.spiritual-knowledge.net/articles/human-word.php

I do realize ofcourse, that the hardened materialist will reject this outright and also reprimand me for promoting "psuedo-science", "silly urban legends" and other such. So please, ogas (Martian?) hold ya fire. Let us discuss first if there is any possibility in this first, before thinking outwards. I do not claim to know anything on this subject, please!

So let me be the first to shoot down the work of Masaru Emoto by referring to the studies, debunking and criticisms stated here -

"A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Any takers?

^^ I've heard about this before but I think more research is needed.

The grail message and many other "faiths" or "movements" (for lack of a better word at the moment) place high premium on thoughts, the mind, the power of positive thinking or the laws of attraction. The grail movement also holds that thoughts gather and form some kind of field and you can tap into that field when you think similar thoughts. This ideology is not exclusive to the grail message.


The jury is still out on that. I think there may be some substance to that, but I think it works in a different manner than the way it is portrayed.
In my opinion, if it works, it does so in a far more simple and natural manner than merely thinking positive thoughts.

The above is not about water crystals et al, but it is related somewhat.

Thanks Jay. I dont know if you are an atheist, but I was wondering. . . .IF it is proven that indeed for example, thoughts could create beautiful water crystal shapes. . . I was wondering if such a thing could or would be decisive or irrelevant in the mind of the atheist, regarding the existence of God.

Atheists?

@both

Deepsight, you seem to have no problem implicitly promoting pseudoscience, but when Jayriginal presented the views of two Nobel Laureates, you scoffed at them. Concerning this japanese guy.

From his wiki page.
[b]Emoto's ideas appeared in the popular documentary "What the Bleep Do We Know!?". Like the film, Emoto's work is widely considered pseudoscience by professionals, and he is criticized for going directly to the public with misleading claims that violate basic physics, based on methods that fail to properly investigate the truth of the claims.[1][2]



About the topic, I think it's just human hubris to think our thoughts or prayers can alter the molecular structure of anything. I'm still reading about it though.

^ ^ ^ Haba, easy na, did you not read my OP? i ALREADY acknowledged the criticism and I even cited the wiki page where a large verification test was done on his ideas with negative results. Here is what I wrote -

Deep Sight:
So let me be the first to shoot down the work of Masaru Emoto by referring to the studies, debunking and criticisms stated here -

"A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Any takers?

Note the bolded above! So it appears that you did not read the OP through, did you?

As regards Jay's Nobel laureate, I retain my stand. His Nobel Prize does not entitle him to spew arrant nonsense. I must be specific about the nonsense I refer to - not the genrality of his work. Jay knew I was speaking specifically about the man's definition of "nothingness" and his ascription of properties to "nothingness" such as "instability" , also calculating the somethingness/ nothingness probability ratio, and other such balderdash.

I am certain you yourself would not be inclined to agree that "nothingness" has properties? Please let us not continue this religiosification of science such that scientists are now priests and nobles in the religion of science and their word now becomes inviolable truth! You cannot criticize me for calling nonsense for what it is - unless you will tell me that the ascription of properties to "nothingness" is not nonsensical.

Its that simple. Or will you say it is blasphemous for a non-scientist to take a view on a scientist's theory or proposition? Is it "not allowed" to criticize Nobel winning scientists? Are they off limits for criticism? Very soon we will have a fully Talibanised science community along with its hordes of talibanised adherents, if we are not careful here!

But hey, let's try not to derail this thread at such an early stage.

Martian: @both

About the topic, I think it's just human hubris to think our thoughts or prayers can alter the molecular structure of anything. I'm still reading about it though.

Can you consider teh question I put to Jay? -

I was wondering. . . .IF it is proven that indeed for example, thoughts could create beautiful water crystal shapes. . . I was wondering if such a thing could or would be decisive or irrelevant in the mind of the atheist, regarding the existence of God.

Please note the "If".

Deep Sight:

Can you consider teh question I put to Jay? -

I was wondering. . . .IF it is proven that indeed for example, thoughts could create beautiful water crystal shapes. . . I was wondering if such a thing could or would be decisive or irrelevant in the mind of the atheist, regarding the existence of God.

Please note the "If".

Why don't you pour some water in bottles and try to shape the crystals with your thoughts.

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ Haba, easy na, did you not read my OP? i ALREADY acknowledged the criticism and I even cited the wiki page where a large verification test was done on his ideas with negative results. Here is what I wrote -



Note the bolded above! So it appears that you did not read the OP through, did you?

As regards Jay's Nobel laureate, I retain my stand. His Nobel Prize does not entitle him to spew arrant nonsense. I must be specific about the nonsense I refer to - not the genrality of his work. Jay knew I was speaking specifically about the man's definition of "nothingness" and his ascription of properties to "nothingness" such as "instability" , also calculating the somethingness/ nothingness probability ratio, and other such balderdash.

I am certain you yourself would not be inclined to agree that "nothingness" has properties? Please let us not continue this religiosification of science such that scientists are now priests and nobles in the religion of science and their word now becomes inviolable truth! You cannot criticize me for calling nonsense for what it is - unless you will tell me that the ascription of properties to "nothingness" is not nonsensical.

Its that simple. Or will you say it is blasphemous for a non-scientist to take a view on a scientist's theory or proposition? Is it "not allowed" to criticize Nobel winning scientists? Are they off limits for criticism? Very soon we will have a fully Talibanised science community along with its hordes of talibanised adherents, if we are not careful here!

But hey, let's try not to derail this thread at such an early stage.

I'm not putting scientist on a pedestal or agreeing with everything they say but you were quick to discard the real scientist but you don't see "arrant nonsense" in this water crystal business.
I just find it amusing.

Another very interesting video.

Water has Memory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=KKLO3eQ81tc

Caveat: But also contains the work of Masaru Emoro - whose work the jury is still out on. As well as relates experiences some of which are unverifiable. But good to watch nonetheless.

Martian:

I'm not putting scientist on a pedestal or agreeing with everything they say

Good. To be fair, neither does Jay.

but you were quick to discard the real scientist

I need to be clear that my comments were directed at his definition of "nothingness". Not him as a person or the generality of his works. Yes, I used words such as Joker, but i'm sure Jay understood it was specific to that position we were discussing in that thread.

but you don't see "arrant nonsense" in this water crystal business.
I just find it amusing.

I think I was the first to raise my hand in my OP by pointing out the study that showed no results for his claims. Infact it was fear of you that was part of my motivation for so doing o!

That's fair enough isn't it?

Need I think the idea "arrant nonsense"? Why? Surely you know that technologies that work with thought are already being developed. That suggests that the idea of thoughts interacting with the physical world is not necessarily strange or unnatural or unscientific.

Deep Sight:
Good. To be fair, neither does Jay.
I need to be clear that my comments were directed at his definition of "nothingness". Not him as a person or the generality of his works. Yes, I used words such as Joker, but i'm sure Jay understood it was specific to that position we were discussing in that thread.

Maybe because you don't really understand his quantum physics based definition oif "nothingness". I mean, I find String Theory, M theory and talks about dimensions fascinating but farfetched. At the same time, they actually put some work into the formulations and calculations of these theories that I know i won't fully grasp unless I start studying physics and the likes, so calling their theories a joke without the needed expertise is kind of arrogant. "my opinion"

example, when Leonard Susskind told Stephen Hawking that he was wrong, he provided proof through his work and his answer, to me, was even more farfetched than hawkings but I didn't call it a joke. I saw Hawking's assistant say he spent more than 6 months figuring out susskind's work and HE WAS A PHD candidate in theoretical physics. So if you are to call the "nothingness" thing a joke, your reasons have to be based on quantum physics and not your personal bias on what is possible.

Anyway, Susskind's theory is about information being preserved in the event horizon of a blackhole. Imagine me, with my two classes of Business Law calling you, A LAWYER, a joker about an area of law I'm not even familiar with.

Deep Sight:
I think I was the first to raise my hand in my OP by pointing out the study that showed no results for his claims. Infact it was fear of you that was part of my motivation for so doing o!
That's fair enough isn't it?
Need I think the idea "arrant nonsense"? Why? Surely you know that technologies that work with thought are already being developed. That suggests that the idea of thoughts interacting with the physical world is not necessarily strange or unnatural or unscientific.

I heard Michio Kaku talk about scientific work in that area e.g thought control computing but this water crystal thing is obviously a joke. You can even try it yourself and quickly debunk it. Make your thoughts write "deepsight" in frozen water crystals then we can talk.

^ ^ ^ Why is it possible to think of thought control computing but not possible for water crystals to be affected by thought? Do you not realize that exactly the same principles are at play? Thought affecting matter, its the same. At all events, if thoughts can conceivably control computing, that straightaway means that there are principles in nature that make such possible. You thus cannot countenance one and scoff at the other.

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ Why is it possible to think of thought control computing but not possible for water crystals to be affected by thought? Do you not realize that exactly the same principles are at play? Thought affecting matter, its the same. At all events, if thoughts can conceivably control computing, that straightaway means that there are principles in nature that make such possible. You thus cannot countenance one and scoff at the other.

I'll scoff because it's magical thinking. Thought computing is due to research and the results are already being seen in Brain Computer Interface(BCI) and artificial prosthetics while the water crystal BS is akin to magic and prayer. It's not the same priciple because the real scientific one requires tools while the pseudoscience just requires thoughts and prayers.When humans modify nature and do seemlingly impossible things, tools are always used in order to bring the thoughts to fruition, I'm yet to see any tangible thing being done by just thinking or prayer and this water crystal business is obviously bunk. You can control nature with your thoughts, BUT it only happens in X-Men and other Marvel Comics.

Deep Sight: Another very interesting video.

Water has Memory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=KKLO3eQ81tc

Caveat: But also contains the work of Masaru Emoro - whose work the jury is still out on. As well as relates experiences some of which are unverifiable. But good to watch nonetheless.

I do feel that all matter and energy hold information. Seeing them as persons, they communicate and inform us on the world.

Martian:

Maybe because you don't really understand his quantum physics based definition oif "nothingness". I mean, I find String Theory, M theory and talks about dimensions fascinating but farfetched. At the same time, they actually put some work into the formulations and calculations of these theories that I know i won't fully grasp unless I start studying physics and the likes, so calling their theories a joke without the needed expertise is kind of arrogant. "my opinion"

example, when Leonard Susskind told Stephen Hawking that he was wrong, he provided proof through his work and his answer, to me, was even more farfetched than hawkings but I didn't call it a joke. I saw Hawking's assistant say he spent more than 6 months figuring out susskind's work and HE WAS A PHD candidate in theoretical physics. So if you are to call the "nothingness" thing a joke, your reasons have to be based on quantum physics and not your personal bias on what is possible.

Anyway, Susskind's theory is about information being preserved in the event horizon of a blackhole. Imagine me, with my two classes of Business Law calling you, A LAWYER, a joker about an area of law I'm not even familiar with.



I heard Michio Kaku talk about scientific work in that area e.g thought control computing but this water crystal thing is obviously a joke. You can even try it yourself and quickly debunk it. Make your thoughts write "deepsight" in frozen water crystals then we can talk.

that's why its necessary to define terms. Nothingness could mean something in physics, probably spacetime, maybe just a state of absence of matter.

Nothingness in another sense, absolute emptiness. Even the lack of colours, space, energy, theoretical lines etc. Lack of anything

Deep Sight:
Thanks Jay. I dont know if you are an atheist, but I was wondering. . . .IF it is proven that indeed for example, thoughts could create beautiful water crystal shapes. . . I was wondering if such a thing could or would be decisive or irrelevant in the mind of the atheist, regarding the existence of God.

Atheists?

In the sense that I am not convinced of the existence of god, yes I am an atheist.

To the issue at hand, supposing it is proven for a fact that thoughts could positively or even negatively affect water crystals, I see no reason for it being decisive in the eternal debate about the existence of god.

Once an explanation can be found for it there would be no need to invoke god as we would know exactly how it works. It will simply be a fact.

I have read in some occultic books that humans radiate certain frequencies which can be transmitted and then picked up by others who are "tuned" in.
ASSUMING, this is proven it will simply be an established fact. Nothing else.
It will no more point to the existence of god than the "conscience" does.

Kay 17: I do feel that all matter and energy hold information. Seeing them as persons, they communicate and inform us on the world.

I've read of experiments they did on a mother rabbit and her offspring.
The idea was to separate the rabbits and on an agreed time, the offspring of the mother rabbit was killed while the mother rabbit was hooked up to machines to detect signs of distress.

At the agreed upon time the offspring was killed several miles away from the mother and the mother was said to have registered signs of distress.

I cant take the story seriously because I read it in an occult book, but that does not mean the story is untrue.

Its difficult to clear all other options, it could be that the distance btw the pig and her offspring is the cause for stress

jayriginal:
In the sense that I am not convinced of the existence of god, yes I am an atheist.

To the issue at hand, supposing it is proven for a fact that thoughts could positively or even negatively affect water crystals, I see no reason for it being decisive in the eternal debate about the existence of god.

Once an explanation can be found for it there would be no need to invoke god as we would know exactly how it works. It will simply be a fact.

I have read in some occultic books that humans radiate certain frequencies which can be transmitted and then picked up by others who are "tuned" in.
ASSUMING, this is proven it will simply be an established fact. Nothing else.
It will no more point to the existence of god than the "conscience" does.

If it were proven, do you not think that that could be highly suggestive of the existence of non-physical influence on the material world - and as such, infer the existence of a bigger reality than that apprehended by the strict materialist atheist?

Martian:

I'll scoff because it's magical thinking. Thought computing is due to research and the results are already being seen in Brain Computer Interface(BCI) and artificial prosthetics while the water crystal BS is akin to magic and prayer. It's not the same priciple because the real scientific one requires tools while the pseudoscience just requires thoughts and prayers.When humans modify nature and do seemlingly impossible things, tools are always used in order to bring the thoughts to fruition, I'm yet to see any tangible thing being done by just thinking or prayer and this water crystal business is obviously bunk. You can control nature with your thoughts, BUT it only happens in X-Men and other Marvel Comics.

This is strange. You accept that thoughts can affect matter and that there is even technology being developed for such. Does it not occur to you that where technology is developed for anything, then such a thing is inherently possible under the laws of nature first? If it could be done through a tool, what then is so "magical" about it being done under naturally existing processes?

At the minimum, the mere fact that technology is being developed for such should trim your scoffing.

Martian:

Maybe because you don't really understand his quantum physics based definition oif "nothingness". I mean, I find String Theory, M theory and talks about dimensions fascinating but farfetched. At the same time, they actually put some work into the formulations and calculations of these theories that I know i won't fully grasp unless I start studying physics and the likes, so calling their theories a joke without the needed expertise is kind of arrogant. "my opinion"

example, when Leonard Susskind told Stephen Hawking that he was wrong, he provided proof through his work and his answer, to me, was even more farfetched than hawkings but I didn't call it a joke. I saw Hawking's assistant say he spent more than 6 months figuring out susskind's work and HE WAS A PHD candidate in theoretical physics. So if you are to call the "nothingness" thing a joke, your reasons have to be based on quantum physics and not your personal bias on what is possible.

Anyway, Susskind's theory is about information being preserved in the event horizon of a blackhole. Imagine me, with my two classes of Business Law calling you, A LAWYER, a joker about an area of law I'm not even familiar with.

Sorry I cannot accept this because they also delved into certain ket concepts in philosophy. The plain fact is that we are speaking about the existence of "something" as opposed to "nothing". Nobody can or should b.ull.sh.it us on that score. Nothingness is just that: nothingness: and no amount of psuedo-scientific jargon or nobel prizes will ever change that. The description of nothingness as "unstable" must win the all time prize for the greatest piece of quackery and d.aftness in science. You know that, Jayriginal knows that, but both of you will shrink from saying it because you worship scientists just as ardently as the Christian worships Jesus.

And of course, you don't need to be a lawyer to challenge a lawyer on many elementary pieces of law which everybody knows. If I told you that there is no possible offence in any kind of homicide, you should reject that even if I have won a million nobel prizes in law: and yet such a statement is not even nearly as untenable as the statement about "nothingness" being "unstable." Its arrant nonsense, and we must call it out for what it is.

Deep Sight:
Sorry I cannot accept this because they also delved into certain ket concepts in philosophy. The plain fact is that we are speaking about the existence of "something" as opposed to "nothing". Nobody can or should b.ull.sh.it us on that score. Nothingness is just that: nothingness: and no amount of psuedo-scientific jargon or nobel prizes will ever change that. The description of nothingness as "unstable" must win the all time prize for the greatest piece of quackery and d.aftness in science. You know that, Jayriginal knows that, but both of you will shrink from saying it because you worship scientists just as ardently as the Christian worships Jesus.
.

But you don't think your thoughts affecting water crystals by telepathy is quackery and daftness. If you want to talk about pseudoscientific jargon, look at the op and the other inane things Jenwitemi usually spouts as the most current "scientific data"

Deep Sight:
And of course, you don't need to be a lawyer to challenge a lawyer on many elementary pieces of law which everybody knows. If I told you that there is no possible offence in any kind of homicide, you should reject that even if I have won a million nobel prizes in law: and yet such a statement is not even nearly as untenable as the statement about "nothingness" being "unstable." Its arrant nonsense, and we must call it out for what it is.

You know I wasn't talking about elementary law. What I said is akin to a freshman who took an elective in physics challenging a phd candidate. You're out of your depths. He's nothingness is based on quantum mechanics, so if you're going to call him a joker, do it by refuting him based on QM.

Your homicide example is weak, everyone knows that it's "at least" a grave crime to be accused of. I'm talking about something as complex as the minute technicalities that could ruin a case.

^ Do you think "nothingness" should be described as having such properties?

If it should, should it be called "nothingness" - ESPECIALLY considering that we are discussing the enigma of existence or NON-existence of anything at all? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Martian:

But you don't think your thoughts affecting water crystals by telepathy is quackery and daftness.

That could not be the case because you yourself acceded that thought based technology is already being developed.

You know I wasn't talking about elementary law.

But the definition of nothingness is elementary.

Stop this worship of scientists please.

Deep Sight:
^ Do you think "nothingness" should be described as having such properties?

If it should, should it be called "nothingness" - ESPECIALLY considering that we are discussing the enigma of existence or NON-existence of anything at all? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Nothingness should be nothing at all, but the "nothingness" of QM is just like my earlier example of information conservation in black hole horizons, they sound interesting but I don't have a working understanding of QM to fully decipher the calculations involved.

Example. Casimir effect.

In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, like capacitors placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. [b]In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them.[1] When this field is instead studied using the QED vacuum of quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force[2]—either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect purely due to second quantization.[3][4] However, the treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations has led to some controversy. In fact "Casimir's original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules" of the metallic plates. Thus it can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual particles of quantum fields.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Do you understand all those calculations?

Deep Sight:

That could not be the case because you yourself acceded that thought based technology is already being developed.
But the definition of nothingness is elementary.

Stop this worship of scientists please.

Who upset you today? Lol. Yesterday I said I didn't put them on a pedestal, you agreed, today you're losing your mind over a subject you don't even understand and telling me I worship scientists. You must be the only one who tries to refute QM with philosophy.

Also , technology based on the brain is different than the telepathy of your water crystal modifications. Don't you know the difference between magic and technology? Lol, I know the answer to that.
Like I said before, you should manipulate some water molecules with your mind. Lets see how successful you'll be.

Deepsight

We have been through this your argument of nothingness Time and time again and you keep bringing up the same argument. In modern day physics, there is nothing like nothingness. What we have is interactions of vibrations ( or energies) of different frequencies. So in effect we are talking about energy fields. When you say nothingness are you saying we have regions of the universe that contain
no matter, energy, gravitational field, magnetic field, etc. Remember gravitational, magnetic and electrical fields extends to infinity. There is no portion of the universe that contain nothingness.

About the possibility of mind being able to control matter, I am of the school of though that it might be a possibility because I believe that thought is a form of energy, and energy interacts with matter(another form of energy), but I don't see how that proves the existence of god(s). more research in that direction is required to understand the mind better. When I say mind, I am not talking about some spiritual or mystical thing, I am talking about the totality of the neurological processes that manifests as consciousness.

Martian - you said -

Nothingness should be nothing at all, but the "nothingness" of QM is just like my earlier example of information conservation in black hole horizons, they sound interesting but I don't have a working understanding of QM to fully decipher the calculations involved.

^ ^ ^ No thanks: cannot accept! Very simple reason - and you should reflect on it -

1. The discussion that this stems from is a discussion in which the riddle: why something instead of nothing was posed. Indeed the so called scientist in his writings addressed himself to this question.

2. Thus the "nothing" which is at issue is a state of the existence of absolute nothingness.

3. The "nothing" which the Quantum physict refers to is not really "nothing" in terms of the argument about something from nothing which he addresses himself to.

As such, it is clinically mis-footed and represents an astonishing failure to grasp the basic precept which he is attempting to discuss.

Its nonsense, of the highest order.

Grasp the essential point: the Quantum physicist when he speaks about "nothing" is not referring to real "nothingness". As such he should never make the si.lly error of applying his "nothing" to a determination regarding the question - "why something instead of nothing?" - because that question addresses the real "nothingness".

You can then imagine how unfathomably si.lly it is to then address the real notion of nothingness and then argue it through with a quantum notion by saying that nothingness is unstable. In fact, I dunk any pretense to politeness: its id.iocy.

STOP WORSHIPPING SCIENTISTS.

wirinet: Deepsight

We have been through this your argument of nothingness Time and time again and you keep bringing up the same argument. In modern day physics, there is nothing like nothingness. What we have is interactions of vibrations ( or energies) of different frequencies. So in effect we are talking about energy fields. When you say nothingness are you saying we have regions of the universe that contain
no matter, energy, gravitational field, magnetic field, etc. Remember gravitational, magnetic and electrical fields extends to infinity. There is no portion of the universe that contain nothingness.

Exactly, and therefore for this reason no scientist should address the philosophical question "why something instead of nothing" with an apeal to a "nothingness" which is not really nothing - but infact something!

If they must address that question, they must address ot from the proper point of view of exactly what "nothingness" refers to.

About the possibility of mind being able to control matter, I am of the school of though that it might be a possibility because I believe that thought is a form of energy, and energy interacts with matter(another form of energy), but I don't see how that proves the existence of god(s). more research in that direction is required to understand the mind better. When I say mind, I am not talking about some spiritual or mystical thing, I am talking about the totality of the neurological processes that manifests as consciousness.

Makes sense.

However dont you think that shutting out the possibility of non-material parts of man/ reality, is in itself unduly dogmatic?

Deep Sight: Martian - you said -
^ ^ ^ No thanks: cannot accept! Very simple reason - and you should reflect on it -
1. The discussion that this stems from is a discussion in which the riddle: why something instead of nothing was posed. Indeed the so called scientist in his writings addressed himself to this question.
2. Thus the "nothing" which is at issue is a state of the existence of absolute nothingness.
3. The "nothing" which the Quantum physict refers to is not really "nothing" in terms of the argument about something from nothing which he addresses himself to.

As such, it is clinically mis-footed and represents an astonishing failure to grasp the basic precept which he is attempting to discuss.
Its nonsense, of the highest order.

So you don't agree with his definition of nothingness, that's no need to foam at the mouth!! He gave an answer to a philosophical question based on his expertise and if you're going to go crazy over it, check your assertion that some being created the universe for self expression. That could sound like a joke to someone too.

Deep Sight:
Grasp the essential point: the Quantum physicist when he speaks about "nothing" is not referring to real "nothingness". As such he should never make the si.lly error of applying his "nothing" to a determination regarding the question - "why something instead of nothing?" - because that question addresses the real "nothingness".

It seems the difference between your nothing and his nothing is the need for an independent factor to trigger that nothing into something. He thinks "absolute nothingness" isn't possible and you think that it is. You may be right and he may be right but remember that scientific facts can be odd or even seem illogical but if they can be backed up, then you just have to accept them. And I'm not saying anybody is right about what "real nothingness" is.

Deep Sight: You can then imagine how unfathomably si.lly it is to then address the real notion of nothingness and then argue it through with a quantum notion by saying that nothingness is unstable. In fact, I dunk any pretense to politeness: its id.iocy.

lol, you're really worked up over "nothing"!!

Deep Sight:
STOP WORSHIPPING SCIENTISTS.

OK I WILL!! After you tell which ones i worship and how I worship them. In the meantime, learn the difference between science nad pseudoscience so you don't continue to open threads about 'Ancient Aliens and the pyramids" and "Water Molecule Design courtesy of Magical Thinking LLC"

Seems I'm late for this party.

@Deepsight: First of all, nothing can be expressed as a mathematical equation in the form of empty hypersets with functions which represent potentialities. This may not make much sense to non-mathematicians, but if you consider that mathematics is the true language of creation and that all matter can be defined or understood to express themselves via repeating mathematical constants.
Now regarding your crystal water phenomenom,it just confirms my own person theory that all is electromagnetic energy. water is just another medium through which energy can move.It is not surprising at all, that energy leaves an imprint on a medium, especially one that is denser than air.
If you agree with my much earlier theory that the brain is a super conductor, then it makes perfect sense for thoughts emanating from the brain to behave ,affect and imprint itself on a dense medium such as water.

That thoughts affect water is nothing new. it has been known for ages. I think it is just beginning to recieve scientific attention. i'm sure you are familar with what religious people call "Holy water". Holy water is water that has peculiar properties.It has long been shown that what is refered to as holy water is actually H3O, whereas ordianry water is H2O. So Holy water is ionized water. inonized by the addition of one hydrogen atom. Since hydrogen has only one electron,one hydrogen atom = one electron. therefore, if you bombard a water molecule with electrons, it is likely to capture one electron to become H3O, which would in turn, alter its molecular structure and its physical structural dynamics.

Since prayer or meditation is form of concentrated thought projection, one can, in theory, ionize or hydrogenize a glass or botle of water(super conductors have no physical bounderies).
Sound, verbal or musical ,on the other hand, are syncronized waves . again, that they affect a dense meduim such as water, should not be surprising.

But what has all this have to do with a belief in a creator? Again, all i see are just the ceaseless interactions of cause and effect.B[b][/b][b][/b]

Deep Sight:

If it were proven, do you not think that that could be highly suggestive of the existence of non-physical influence on the material world - and as such, infer the existence of a bigger reality than that apprehended by the strict materialist atheist?

It could mean that we may have to re define our understanding of "physical".

But even if we do not, why cant it simply mean that we (humans) can affect material/physical things by non physical means. I dont see why we should need god for that. As a possibility, maybe. As a certainty, no.

Kay 17: Its difficult to clear all other options, it could be that the distance btw the pig and her offspring is the cause for stress

I guess that is possible too, but the experiment reported signs of distress in the mother when the child was killed at the agreed upon time.
Again, I have to restate that I personally do not have much faith in this "report" because of the source.

Deep Sight:

You know that, Jayriginal knows that, but both of you will shrink from saying it because you worship scientists just as ardently as the Christian worships Jesus.

Even after I made it clear to you severally that science plays no significant role in my lack of belief, you still make the above statement.

If I told you that there is no possible offence in any kind of homicide, you should reject that even if I have won a million nobel prizes in law: and yet such a statement is not even nearly as untenable as the statement about "nothingness" being "unstable."

Good thing I also know a thing or two about law and I can boldly and emphatically say that not everything in law is as straightforward as it seems to a layman from the outside.
Therefore, if you make a statement like the above, my natural instinct will be to disagree but realising you might have an angle, I will ask to be shown that angle first.

On this issue of "nothing", you are way out of your league. You can disagree all you like, that will not change the fact of whether they are wrong or right. However, you should note that these are dedicated researchers.
They are very unlikely to start peddling unsubstantiated theories with their reputations at stake.
Cosmology is a very very theoretical discipline and not much is certain. Not much follows conventional "wisdom" either. The fact that something does not follow your common observation is no reason to discard it without more.

Remember these passages

Einstein's original equations in general relativity predicted that the universe should be expanding. Interestingly, however, Einstein later inserted into his equations an arbitrary "cosmological constant" to negate the necessity of cosmic expansion. Einstein later described his cosmological constant as "the biggest blunder of my life." It is incredible to contemplate that, in addition to his other extraordinary contributions to science, Einstein could have provided theoretical evidence for the Big Bang before any experimental or observational evidence suggested its occurrence. Unfortunately, Einstein was influenced by the popular belief of his time that the universe was more or less static. Einstein, like those of us of lesser ability, could hardly display more intellectual independence than his time permitted.

David Mills, Atheist Universe, (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006)

Psychological Roadblocks

Science, by its very definition, disregards "common-sense" notions and relies solely upon experimental data to construct scientific law. It is wholly irrelevant whether we feel comfortable with the results of our experiments. These experimental results, if repeatable and independently verifiable, must be accepted, regardless of our cherished "common-sense" theories to the contrary.

Likewise, a science-minded attitude requires us to accept the cosmological implications of the mass-energy conservation law whether or not we feel comfortable with those conclusions. Very often, our "common sense" will lead us astray if it is utilized to formulate scientific law. Many pre-Renaissance scholars thought it was common sense that the Earth was flat and motionless. If Einstein's special and general theories of relativity had been tested by common sense, Einstein would have been committed to a psychiatric hospital. Where, may I ask, is the common sense in Einstein's time dilation or in his proposition that empty space can be bent? Ideas based only upon "common sense" are of little use to science.

'nuff said.