No need, because that's where I lost you. I quoted from your link a sentence showing where "the bias towards the expected results" is used to explain away the variance in the so-called constants as "random errors". The bias in science is that the constants are constant, and so any minor variations are dismissed as errors, when perhaps they should not be. Change is the only constant, so variations in the so-called constants would not surprise me. Some of those constants are simply fudge-factors introduced to make the calculated results match the observed results!

Not only does this happen in science, it also happens in the pursuit of understanding consciousness, and that was my point. We observe a man setting fire to paper using "chi", and your bias is that the man has "higher consciousness" because that is your expected result. I don't have that bias, so I see a man setting fire to paper in an unknown way that demands further investigation but without jumping to conclusions.


Yes. It may be an error.

Consider the boiling point of water. We say it is 212 degrees F (100 C), but that is only true at sea level under "normal" Earth conditions. In the tall mountains, water boils at a lower temperature. Even at sea level, the boiling point of water is dependent on several variables, like impurities in the water, the air pressure, and maybe even some other factors that we haven't discovered yet whose effects are miniscule.

Where does the tire meet the road? You dont have to be a scientist to know, thats for sure, but I am glad they could help out.


A Conscious Universe - The Observer Effect

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PS24bef_J8




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=983lhh20rGY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BkI8LD24y0

A foundation of Zen and hope?

The observer and what is observed are linked, but this does not mean we literally create reality. It means we influence reality, and reality influences us, naturally so since we are part of reality. The problem lies in interpreting our experience, and the fact that our interpretation is the experience, or more accurately the perception of the experience. There is a big difference between creating reality and creating the perception of reality. Unfortunately, as subjective creatures, we can only experience reality via perception. We literally create our perception of reality, which may or may not resemble the reality that triggered the construction of our perceptions. It is a conundrum, which is why it is so confusing. Can a subjective being be objective?

If you think you understand it, that's your perception. But what is the truth?

I think we need to rewind here a moment, in an attempt to establish some context.


My inspiration to post information on the far from constant "Constants of Science" came from your offhanded dismissal of the movie as "just fictional entertainment and conjecture". I hope my introduction of the bare facts exposing the conflict between theory and empirical reality didn't interrupt your little dogmatic dance to much!

Even the director/screenwriter Wagner de Assis said in his interview, "It's only a movie."

I think we agree that there are elements of "fictional entertainment and conjecture" in both science and cinema. It is just a matter of degree and poetic license. Note also that some elements of fact and truth can be found in both as well.

I do, so lets take a examin some of the close minded skeptics of life before and after life:



A lot more interesting information and links can be found at Victors websit: http://www.victorzammit.com/

This guy is a not a close-minded skeptic of life before and after life. He is a closed-minded proponent of life after death.

His arguments are really bad. I have an even worse opinion of lawyers after this video. Here is a quick rebuttal of his eight arguments:

1. The evidence for the after-life is essentially hearsay and speculation based on hearsay. If there is evidence to the contrary, present it.
   
2. Being an atheist excludes true scientific balance? Then so does every other belief system.
   
3. Evolution demonstrates a complete system that functions without gods. If that is a personal view springing from subjective beliefs, then so is everything else.
   
4. Dawkins fails to explain the law of energy? What law of energy? Failure to explain something made-up, i.e. ignorance of something unknown, is not proof of an after-life. All animals appear to have consciousness, and the evidence that consciousness survives death is entirely speculative.
   
5. Dawkins fails to explain the energy behind the evolutionary process. OK, so explain the energy behind the non-evolutionary process.
   
6. Dawkins fails to explain... oh please, not again! Dawkins fails to explain designed intelligence in the environment. Evolution clearly shows no designed intelligence is necessary, so why explain it if there is no evidence for it?
   
7. Empiricists claim evolution continues after physical death. Hey, it's just a claim! Where's the measurable and repeatable evidence?
   
8. Dawkins explains everything by chance and randomness? Wrong! This lawyer obviously doesn't understand evolution at all. Evolution is not about random change, but environmentally-directed change. Environments have a small random component because probability is an inherent part of quantum physics, which basically means probability is an inherent part of everything. What is the probability of a meteor destroying a factory? Practically zero, but it just happened in Russia.

This is a curious reaction to a straightforward question!

Straightforward question? How many people out there understand what is being asked? Here's the question again, in case your reaction was like Dawkins' reaction:


How would you know if the information in the genome increased, decreased, or stayed the same without sequencing the entire genome before and after any mutation or evolutionary change?

No wonder Dawkins was flummoxed.

And that's assuming that the number of base pairs is the total amount of information in the genome, and that other information encoding mechanisms do not exist. Which may not be a good assumption.

What a bunch of shite.

How come no ape has turned into a human? Or fish into something. A talking bear? Evolutionist are egotist like creationist. Two sides of the same coin...
What a joke...