Endercreeper01

You missed my point. If you look through the lens of science, the universe cannot be described as anything more than a mathematical system.

It's not a logical fallacy to say that something can't happen in a particular way.

Because it has no reason to arise. How can something as abstract as mathematics lead to the existence of a sentience that feels and experiences?

Consider logic and reasoning for a moment. There is no reason why mathematical operations of information processing should give rise to an independent consciousness. We shouldn't be expected to be sentient beings if the universe is just composed of mathematical systems, operations, and geometry.

Because it is composed of mathematical systems.

How do you suppose such a mathematical system as the brain could ever produce something as real as consciousness? Because physical mechanisms are fundamentally systems based on mathematics, which in and of itself could not produce consciousness. Consciousness is not something which should be expected to exist in a purely mathematical and geometrically based universe. Which is why it implies something that exists beyond the boundaries of space and time. If geometry has no reason to give rise to our existence, it implies that there should be more to the idea of consciousness that we do not know about. Because of what we don't know about consciousness, we shouldn't assume that it is limited to the brain, or that the brain cannot be influenced by it in such a way as to allow free will.

Because consciousness cannot arise from something as abstract as math, which is all the universe should fundamentally be composed of, nothing more than mathematical systems.

Consciousness has no reason to exist in the mathematical framework of the universe. How could something which feels and experiences subjectively possibly arise from a mathematical system such as the brain? The universe shouldn't fundamentally be any more than mathematics and geometry..

Yes, my position is that because there is no physical mechanism by which a machine such as our brains can become conscious, then consciousness cannot be explained in naturalistic terms using physics, chemistry, and biology.

Why would you suppose such a universe would exist in the first place? And what would make such a universe lead to the emergence of conscious entities?

Not when there is no physical mechanism which could lead to it's existence.

Those models do not explain how the brain, which is a machine, can produce consciousness. There isn't any possible physical mechanism by which consciousness can arise from a machine such as the brain, which is just a unique arrangement of atoms and molecules. In spite of that, we are still conscious somehow... If there is no possible physical mechanism that could produce a conscious entity, which experiences sentience and has subjective experience, it shouldn't be assumed that it is bound by the same physicality which does not have a way of creating it's existence. Remember that correlation does not equal causation. Just because the brain and consciousness are correlated with each other, does not mean that the brain has to produce consciousness. How do you suppose consciousness can be the result of strictly physical processes in the first place? There is no physical mechanism by which a machine such as a brain, which is fundamentally a complicated specific arrangement of atoms of molecules, could produce consciousness. If such a thing as consciousness could exist in spite of any physicality, why should you assume that it would be bound by those same physical mechanisms which should not give rise to it's emergence?

This looks like a leap in thinking. How does the fact that people are influenced by biological factors negate the idea of a consciousness separate from a brain?

You can't assume that consciousnesses is something without its own separate existence.

Without any mainstream scientific theories to describe the nature of consciousness and how it arises, your question cannot be answered from a strictly scientific point of view. You seem to be trying to find the answer to questions that you can't explain with your own preconceptions about reality. If you want to answer such questions as your own, you need to keep an open mind and consider all the possibilities, and put aside your own beliefs.

That is already a theory. It is called the big bounce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

I mean that time dilation on earth is not strong enough such that there would not be large enough effects for the OP's idea to work. If you have atomic clocks, you can observe the difference between time on earth and time in space.

Gravity is not powerful enough on earth to produce noticeable time dilation effects. However, if someone was orbiting a black hole, and escaped after a certain time period, they could experience noticeable time dilation effects that would make them receive new technology in less time than someone on earth.

Gravity cannot be an equal but opposite reaction to the expansion of the universe because the two forces would be equal. The equal but opposite reaction to the expansion of the universe has something to do with dark energy, something not well known about.

In relativity, anything that happens in one point of view applies in all points of view (reference frames). The density requirements would have to increase in your reference frame in order for the same thing to happening both frames of reference.

No field of science is dying. However, it is becoming more challenging to find new species because of the destruction of natural habitats caused by humans.

We could calculate the behaviors of a human through physics, but only if our brains acted classically. If our brains acted quantum mechanically, we would only be able to find certain probabilities that a human will react in a certain way. We do not completely know how the brain works, so we cannot predict anything for now.

Kilograms is not force. Pounds is force, but kilograms are not. If gravity was like magnetism, we would feel a repulsion from negative mass, but we don't. Negative mass does not exist, but if it did, negative mass would repel positive mass and attract negative. If gravity was like electromagnetism, we would see negative and positive mass attract. The centripetal force acts on bodies moving in a circular path. When a planet is orbiting a star, the centripetal and gravitational forces are equal, i.e [latex]\frac{v^2}{r}=-\frac{-GM}{r^2}[/latex]

No black holes with significant electrical charge have never been found. This is because the repulsive force is greater than the attractive force of gravitation when matter with significant charge is compressed.

I know, but I was wondering if the Tipler cylinder would actually allow time travel to the past. I suspect it to be pseudoscience, but I was just asking on the forums to make sure.