That's what I mean. The boundary of the sphere is part of the sphere. Just like any surface inside it. So our universe could be a volume inside a higher dimensional space. So located inside that higher dimensional space. Expansion of space is proof.

The 2d surface of a sphere is located on its boundary. Likewise our universe can be located somewhere in a higher dimensional space. Of course matter has to be attached to our 3 space dimensions. It can expand in that higher dimensional space. Dark energy and all that. DE is just higher dimensional curvature!

For example, dogs and cats are not aware about their own existence. — javi2541997

My dog lays on the couch licking clean her precious part. She's very aware of herself. Thomas Malthus, eugenics, are alive and kicking...

Our 4d finite closed spacetime could be located in a higher dimensional spacetime. Isn't it located then?

Just as spacetime is (located) neither where nor when, (i.e. neither (has) inside-outside nor before-after). — 180 Proof

How do you know that? It can be situated in a higher dimensional infinite space into which our universe is expanding.

How can you prove it's not? The universe is not just some fixed 4d spacetime state of matter through which our consciousness travels. I consider it attached to matter, inside it, traveling and pushing and pulling along.

Why did the serpent want Eve to know about the good also? Why not make her, and her descendants, pure evil? Wouldn't that be more fun? Why is the good good?

But our consciousness is part of the universe.

The beginning is just a symmetrical passage of time. It goes forwards and backwards. Then circumstances, the ending of a previous big bang, caused it to take of in one direction. And that's why time has a direction. And when our universe has expanded away to infinity, that triggers a new big bang behind us. Maybe we'll resurface there. Over and over. Pain upon pain upon pain. What a promise... Even suicide won't help...

Doesn't it have to exist to walk through it?

Cool stuff! Especially the arrow pictures are telling. And the light brown picture is intriguing! All from iterating MT? Are the centers in these arrow fields the two points from one?

Motion without time. You're on a roll! — jgill

That's exactly what time does without motion. It has motion, of course. Time always involves motion. But there are different kinds of motion. The symmetrical motion of which you can't say (not even if you know everything about it) if it goes forward or backward in time, precedes the unidirectional asymmetrical irreversible motion involved in the thermo"dynamic" time. Something like that. It's all figùred out pretty smartass....

How can the universe be timeless? The fact that you can remember things proves that time exists.

Love this video about Möbius transformations

There are endless arguments about beginnings or eternities but its like a dog trying to understand calcul — jgill

Well, there is one element of calculus they understand. The greater than or more than comparison. They always want to fetch the bigger stick and want more.
Why can't we understand time? It's a clock ticking or asymmetric motion based on symmetric motion. Time can't be reversed because it has a beginning. The beginning is caused by timeless motion.

As a subject, the start of everything doesn't interest me much. I tend to think notions of beginnings and ends are human attempts to apply order to the reality we know. 'How it all began' is of almost no use to me in my daily life. But I understand the especial attraction of beginnings for theists. The absurd uncaused first cause still has a hold on folk who use it to prop up god's who must have something to do, or they recede into history. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure I understand why this is an attraction for theists. I'm a theist too but I don't have a problem with a beginning without them gods.

You should have led with that. — Garrett Travers

I did. I wrote many times that it's what inside the material you refer to that counts. We are not our brain but our body, in between what's outside of us and inside of us.

Yes, here you're partially right.
Some people can stop their heart by mental power.

But in a normal state the brain isn't involved.

I accept everything you write and all the links you gave. I mean, those things are going on. But I don't think it's the whole story.

The brain controls the heart. — Garrett Travers

The beating of the heart is autonomous.

Their charges. All massive particles comes from massless particles. They posses two or three kinds of charge, which couple them to intermediate virtual condensates to interact with other massless basics. I will not go deeper into this (it's not a physics site), but the true nature of charge is unknown. Our brain gives us, as the bodies we are, a means to consciously exist in the world, which is constantly projected into our inner world by the senses of our body.

We are talking about that with what matter is charged. Physical charge!

I don't know what you are talking about. — Garrett Travers

The divine magic inside of matter. The constant divinity running around in our brains like millions parallel mini lightings on the neuron pathways on paths of least resistence.

And you all appear as Pharisees condemning wlhat you don't like to hear, — Garrett Travers

Who says I don't like to hear it? I'm very interested in the physical worldview. I got a nice theory about elementary particles, cosmological genesis, creatures arising in it, and about the brain. It misses a thing though. I have proof and evidence of what is missing but you don't accept that as proof or call it an epiphenomenon or emergent property.

You all need to catch up, — Garrett Travers

I don't. I actually know how the brain functions. And let me tell you, it's more than matter in motion. You must shed the blinkers and prejudices though. If you value empricism and evidence you would see material is an emergent property. Your prejudicial blinkers prevent you though from seeing the evidence.

Considering your 1300 posts in one month you seem to be in a manic mind state, like euphoric missionaries were when bringing the gospel truth to the ignorant pagans in the new world. Transforming reality into a scientific materialistic view, devoid of that which it tries to explain in the first place is means that this approach is incapable of explaining consciousness. It can only describe consciousness, meaning it can tell if it's present in a system of particles interacting with the world around it.

How did life originate? — SatmBopd

The rotation of the Earth is of uttermost importance. Day and night, sleep and wake, hot and cold, they are the important features that give matter and the vital divine spark in it the means to evolve by moving away from thermodynamic equilibrium bit by bit. The flow of heat reverses daily in the rythm of day and night. Matter receives from the Sun at daytime and radiates during night. The equilibrium can never be reached, giving matter structures a means to evolve between the heat and the cold. Creatures come crawling out of the swamps, start roaming in seas, start growing out of the earth, and walk on the land.

It could be the universe is eternal and infinite in extent, in which big banged universe follow each other up. Not expanding and contracting and expanding, etc. But serial expanding universes all with their own beginning of time caused by the preceding universe. And guess who brought it all into existence? It were the gods clapping their tales or howling the words.

So by analogy, that there is not necessarily any detectable 'soul input', does not entail that it is all quarks and probability waves. — unenlightened

We are all composites of quarks or deeper. Nobody knows what they are though, so they can't explain consciousness. You can only experience their interior.

Firstly, Blah-blah-blah neural networks. — unenlightened

That's what this thread is about. If it's about neuroscience blah blah I use neuron blah blah. It's just a transformation of what we experience in that blah blah language. You can reduce every language to blah blah, seen from another bloh bloh language. All blah blah can be translated into bluh bluh or bleh bleh. Neuronal networks just offer a means to think or feel. An experienced consciousness cant be explained by neuronal networks. It depends on which part of it you value.

I find it interesting that if photons (EM radiation) superposition with electrons (atomic orbitals) — Enrique

What do you mean with this? I don't think photons are superpositioned with electrons in orbitals. How do you envision this?

Bowser's theory of consciousness is that it is entirely digital, — unenlightened

Problem is, the collective parallel ion pulse currents in the brain don't constitute information referring to something else like in digital computers. The connection strengths between neurons can be changed due to synaps widening.

That sounds reasonable. I think so too. So God can create, obviously. Just look around. What they created can create too. Even what we created can create, but that's actually us creating.

It can't reside in it, if you cut the brain open, all you find is the contents of the brain — Garrett Travers

It's about the content of matter. Not in between or around it. There you won't find it. It litterally resides inside it. The proof is feeling pain your whole life. Pain defines life. Life is an experience of intense pain, with small interdoli of relieve, mania, intense euphoria or eudaemonia.

We need to be aware of the world we move in. This awareness is given to us by a physical brain, which at the same time shapes that world.

That doesn't mean that physicalism explains consciousness. Consciousness is an integral part of reality without which there would be no life. Materialism excludes this quality from reality and call consciousness emergent, epiphenomenal, a contingency, accompanying, thriving on, or non-essential. Which is their good right. It can't explain though how a feeling comes about and can merely state, usually in an evolutionary gene/meme-centered structure, that it is a necessity for survival. By declaring it to be a byproduct of neutral and empty material processes it relocates consciousness to an imaginary domain. Because, if it's a byproduct, then where does it reside? If it's illusionary, then why do we feel it? Physicalism has no answer. It paints itself in a corner that's getting smaller and smaller, which can easily be resolved by breaking the physicalistical wall creating the corner, letting the materialistic paint dry, or just walk over it and leave the physical room.

True intelligence recognizes that all forms of intelligence seen in nature have the same value, including the free intelligence of people.

Yeah, it's different from what you describe. I gave your F a fair amount of thought. If we set the nominator 1 and write F=1/(a-(a-1/r)) (=r), what have we done with r? Say r=10. We can take a=1. This gives 1 and 9/10. Is that the bi in bifurcation? I can't see a parabole, as you write.

Bifurcation, a transcritical, pitchfork, and Hopf

Q

There I go again, playing Nostradamus. — Garrett Travers

Now you start to show first signs of brain failure...

It's my secret. I don't want anyone to know. Found it out thanks to my own brain. Introspection, you know. Dialogue.

For someone rambling on about physicalism you know damned little...

Through the integration of sensory data across multiple neural channels before being stored in the hippocampus for retrieval by the neocortex. Left you some research on it up there too. — Garrett Travers

That's not an answer how it's formed. Only that it's formed. How is it integrated? It's very simple... Like the working of the whole brain is very simple...