"Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence."

I'm sorry, but was Kaku drunk at the time? (Unlikely.) Or is the author just making stuff up? (My money's on this one.) Why? Simply, because theoretical particles aren't physical evidence for anything, by definition, since they haven't been shown to exist. Only particles that are observed and measured are physical evidence, and there is currently no way, even in principle, to either create or observe a tachyon, and certainly not with 2005 technology. I call baloney.

Pardon me if I take the thoughts and wonders of Dr. Kaku over yours.

I had lunch with this guy when he came to speak at my college in 1997 (with other students) He really does talk like this. Can't comment on the substance of any of it. Anyhow, he's been a public speaker for so long working with very hard to describe theoretical stuff, so that's part of the reason for being vague. Hard to be concrete talking about mathematical constructs.

Im done here. This comment section is filled with 3rd grade dropouts who think they just have to mention "quantum physics" to sound like a rational person. They are essentially self neutered brainless pointless beings stuck in a wagon rut of a brain.
ther are only about 4 people on here. All white men. All fanatica christian extremists. All filled with contempt for any conscious person with an original idea. Read this section will drop your IQ by 30-40 points in 5 minutes. Before you know it you will be wasting time here like me. Enjoy your time with the American Taliban

Seeyalater

And he still came up empty handed without any concrete factual evidence of a god, you just have to believe it. I have a bigger penis than god, I can't prove it, you just gotta believe it.

God heard that and has declared Hubris across the land.

Than whom, did you say?...Zeus, was it? Never heard of the great "I am" descending upon anywhere's local virgins, but your thought adds new meaning to "My God is bigger than your God." Lord almighty, these boards are educational.

There are no Gods, but Yahweh did say kill all your enemies. every man , woman and child and all their animals and destroy everything they built, and keep the virgins as sex slaves.

If there were no gods, it would be necessary to create them in order to keep these boards going. BTW, bad boy. Y is the un-nameable. You are in so much trouble now. Let's see, I believe the declination is "smite, smote, smitten."

So much haggling over such obvious nonsense. Read the first line, then think! A theoretical particle is physical evidence of nothing. It's theoretical, inferred but not observed. I strongly suspect this entire article is a hoax.

Oh, yeah, forgot the “primitive semi-radius tachyons”. That cinches the hoax. Kaku never wrote about such because there is no such thing. Hoax.

You lost me at where you said that something theoretical is physical evidence...

Everything is made with a plan, consideration, balance. It requires intelligence. If animals should have developed, formed their own body and life, would not it be as it is, most animals are prey. If we humans had developed ourselves, we had more than just two sets of teeth.

I came to this conclusion as well 30 years ago. The description of God is best shown by how we define math. It is omnipresent, outside of time and space etc. God laid down the laws of physics and math is the language of physics. Nice to see someone has put more meat on the bone based on this idea. We need a new religion based on these concepts. I also think consciousness is quantum based. Quantum is the portal to these idea. The wave function of quantum is where it is all at. It is Plato's allegory of the cave. The bible came the closest with the statement that God is Light. Judging by the posts here it is sad to see that I and the author am the only person thinking along these lines.

I'm not really sure what you're trying say,but....

"Materialism is a dead end for science, but attributing everything to magic is probably just as bad."

Science isn't based on "materialism". It's simply a process,or 'tool' we use to understand our natural surroundings and has no agenda other than finding probable answers.
----------------
"Consciousness that manipulates energy, like an artist, a musician, an engineer, seems to be where the evidence is leading."

I'm an artist,musician and my job entails engineering,and there's nothing 'magical' about it. It's all based on science and math,not some "cosmic energy".
Without science creating various tools,from pencils to paint,to clay,etc.,I wouldn't be able to do any of these things. Everything an artists creates is based on either what they observe naturally,or what they create in their mind's eye and imagination,which also translates to inventors,doctors,architects,musicians,etc.

Music is a combination of rigid math and emotional expression. No magic needed.
I've been studying and practicing for decades and my own dedication and discipline is why I can do it.

I had drafting all through high school and have been construction for over 30 years,and that's all math and engineering. It's not magic.
---------------------
"The arrogance we have is amazing when most likely we are 1st grade level
consciousness creatures here on Earth trying to say the playground of
material science is the only thing important, and I already know
everything, meanwhile the universe(s) and consciousness dimensions are
most likely infinitely more amazing than we can guess."

That arrogance doesn't come from science,it comes from religion. Science NEVER says "I already know everything". That would defeat the purpose of science,since it functions on not knowing,and then looking for answers. It constantly updates based on new information and is self correcting.
Religion thinks it already has all the answers and knows everything,which is why it's based on unchanging,dogmatic beliefs.

You've reduced the qualia or subjective experience that accompanies those skills to basically rubbish. Listen to Bernardo Kastrup's Youtube video, "In Defense of Theology." Maybe you'll get it. But then again, maybe not.

Religion is the reason science exists. The church has funded almost all of modern science.

Science predates religion by at least 4 million years,so no.
The church has consistently stood in the way of scientific advancement,and still does,so no.

No idiot, not one university professor in the world would agree with your retard definition of modern science, which was founded by Christians. Otherwise cite one credible source that supports your idiotic assertion .

Your frustration and desperation are showing again.
No matter how much you want it,Christians didn't "invent" science. All you're doing is proving you don't even know what science is.
I can prove it too....

IN YOUR OWN WORDS,define "science",tell us what it does,and how it works. No cut and paste,no quotes. Your words alone,and we'll see how smart you aren't.
I can't wait.

Christians invented the scientific method and funded modern science. No historian in the world would disagree. Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus all Christians, and most of funding by Catholic church. Sure there were disagreements but facts is if it wasn't for the church and Christians no scientific method and no modern science.

I'll try it one more time....
IN YOUR OWN WORDS,define "science",tell us what it does,and how it works. No cut and paste,no quotes. Your words alone,and we'll see how smart you aren't.

If you can't do it,just admit you can't do it.

I've already told your mentally ill atheist head that modern science is defined by the post scientific revolution that espouses the Galileo Copernicus scientific method. Anything before than may resemble modern science but would be accurately classified as protoscience.

The word science did not even exist until the 19th century numbskull . And again, Christians funded and founded modern science.

Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.

That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.

But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.

I responded to this,but I don't know what happened to it.

"The word science did not even exist until the 19th century numbskull ."

That's the modern title or name we gave to the process that we've been using for millions of years,once we recognized and refined that process. Just because the word was invented recently doesn't mean the process didn't already exist.
We didn't just start using science 400 years ago,you dummy....lol
Christ,how the hell do you think they built the pyramids? All science and math on various levels and branches.

Humans have always had hair,but it was only recently that we "invented" a name for it. Just because we recently gave a name to hair,doesn't mean hair hasn't existed for millions of years.
By your lack of logic,since hair didn't have a name,it didn't exist.
------------------
"And again, Christians funded and founded modern science."

And again,no they didn't.
Christians weren't around when the pyramids were built,as already mentioned,the first solid construction of buildings and cities,agriculture,farming,aqua-ducts and irrigation,the wheel,which gave us pulley systems,cogs,sprockets,bearings and the list goes on there.
All of these things evolved from early tool and weapon making,making fire,cooking,clothing,etc.,etc. starting 4 million years ago,and through observation,common sense,logic and cognitive reasoning skills,experimentation,trial and error,we've continued to advance to where we are today.
That's why people speculate on where we might be tomorrow.

Talking to you is like talking to a frustrated 8 year old. Are you sure you're an adult?

Poor Johnny boy, what you are talking about is protoscience, not modern science. Lol, what a tool you are.

Please read and learn what every scholar in the world believes modern science to be.

The English word scientist is relatively recent—first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century. Previously, people investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers. While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is often traced back to the early modern period and in particular to the scientific revolution that took place in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. Scientific methods are considered to be so fundamental to modern science that some consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific.[1] Traditionally, historians of science have defined science sufficiently broadly to include those inquiries.[2]

From the 18th century through late 20th century, the history of science, especially of the physical and biological sciences, was often presented in a progressive narrative in which true theories replaced false beliefs.[3] Some more recent historical interpretations, such as those of Thomas Kuhn, tend to portray the history of science in different terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science.[4]

Now you're making things up and making more excuses.
------------------
"The English word scientist is relatively recent—first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century."

Right,I don't deny it,but it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with how recent the label is,but rather how old the process is.
Did that go over your head?
I'm seriously wondering if you do in fact have a learning disability.
I'll try again. Please READ it and try to comprehend what's written.

That's the name we finally gave to the process we've been using for millions of years.
Do. You. Understand?

No you mentally ill twerp. The name we gave to pre science Revolution processes is protoscience. Post scientific Revolution and Galileo Copernicus scientific method development is now called modern science. Face palm...

Guess you didn't graduate ..lol

Seriously,it's like talking to a child.

'Protoscience' is early modern science,mixing and involving the occult and religion.
Alchemy,witchcraft and sorcery,combining chemicals and other ingredients,mixing "potions",which gave rise to modern medicine. The belief that the effects of applied science was actually the result of supernatural magic.
That's not what I'm talking about,dummy.

And Copernicus and Galileo were astronomers using observation and math,not scientists that did tests and experiments,and they predated the modern "scientific method".

Regardless...and please pay attention...."science" predates religion by at least 4 million known years.
Anyone that knows what actual "science" is,what it does and how it works knows this.
It's a natural method we use and have always used,but not refined into the rigid method it is today until a couple of hundred years ago. Necessity is the mother of invention,and the need to survive and thrive required us to either adapt,innovate and overcome or die. And what allowed us to do was our opposable thumbs and bigger brain,therefore passing all other species in these areas.
Otters,for example,apply cognitive reasoning skills by using stones as tools,but they don't actually make or design tools for a specific task,where we used observation,experimentation and trial and error to not only design tools and methods,but constantly redesign and improve tools,hunting weapons and techniques,shelter,clothing,footwear,etc.

That's science,and it predates any religion or supernatural belief by millions of years.
Not only did I graduate,but I also know how to think. You only know what you were told to think.

Lol, now Galileo and Copernicus were not scientists ?? And they were astronomers but not scientists ?? Oh man, I'll just stop right here. Poor Johnny boy time to take your medication . And don't lie I know you didn't go to college you're too stupid to see how ignorant you really are . Congratulations your idiocy makes me give up!!

"Lol, now Galileo and Copernicus were not scientists ??"

Jesus Christ,you really are stupid...lol
I never said,or even suggested they weren't scientists,considering astronomy is one of the many branches of science.

Since you lack reading comprehension skills,they didn't use the modern "scientific method",as you claimed they did,which is what I corrected you on. That didn't come until after their time,as well as them not using repeatable laboratory experiments.
As well,their findings came from math and observation of the stars,like I said the first time.

Do. You. Understand?

No that's what I'm saying I don't understand you. Your grammar and spelling are crap and it's near impossible to understand what you're talking about. Your writing makes my head hurt and you are vague, unclear, ambiguous , and overall an uneducated writer who fails to make points concisely, clearly, and even comprehensibly. I understand it must be hard when nobody understands you.

Please go back to school and learn how to write properly and professionally.

Do.You. Understand?

"No that's what I'm saying I don't understand you."

I know,because you're stupid. We've already established that.

It's obvious to anyone with a college degree that you're most likely a 60 year old near homeless ditch digger with no assets or career. Now that I think about it, I actually feel bad. May you find peace.

Come on, be honest , I know you are an uneducated person. If it makes you feel better keep pretending on the internet.

I couldn't be more clear. The problem lies with you,not me.
You have nothing left.

Ask anyone with a college degree to check your grammar and written communication ability. If they are honest , they will tell you it's disorganized, sloppy, and generally confusing. Please work on it and come back when you've improved. I'm sure your teachers have told you this before many times.

It isn't working.
You tried to debate the subject,you failed miserably and now you're desperate to still seem relevant,but you're not.

I'm telling you the truth . I'm sure you've heard it before. You know you don't have a college degree, I'd wager you're a high school dropout or barely graduated. It's hard to talk about quantum physics with high school dropouts. It's not your fault, just go back to school. You have a passion for learning, you just need some professional and credible education to write comprehensibly and with good grammar. Best of luck .

I never said or even suggested I had a college degree.
What's with you idiots and all your personal assumptions about people you don't even know? Did they teach you that in college or church?
What sucks for you is,if you did go to college,you're being buried by a high school graduate that hasn't has a science class since 8th grade.
How do you feel now? It must suck to bested by someone that doesn't possess a "higher education",or even formally trained in science in any capacity. That's gotta hurt.

Due to your heavy loss in this debate,which happened a long time ago,you have resorted to doing nothing but getting personal,because you can't actually keep up with the subject.
I had you a long time ago,and since then,I've just been toying with you,but you're not even perceptive or intelligent enough to see it,which is what makes it so funny.

John, don't be so delusional. Ask anyone with a college degree whether you've won this debate. If you were really so smart how did I know you are uneducated ?

You are too uneducated and ignorant to see how blind and wretched you are. You are unable to answer basic questions like how Wigner’s work relates to measurement and consciousness yet you think you can opine on his Nobel Prize winning mathematics . Its just delusional and sad. Best of luck to you.

Yawn.
You lost last week. Since then I've just been batting you around for my own enjoyment,like a cat with a mouse.

So says the 60 year old near homeless high school dropout unemployed ditch digger.

As the angry,hateful Christian continues to conveniently evade the subject,because he can only rely on personal assumptions and attempted insults to seem relevant.

Haha I'm not angry . I feel sorry for you. Again, when you can answer how Wigners work relates to measurement and consciousness we might have something to discuss. But I know that will never happen because you need a formal education to get there.

Until then, talking to atheist disabled, uneducated ditch diggers isn't my thing . Best of luck!

You're embarrassing yourself again.

What you're talking about is a thought experiment. It's based on consciousness not be a tangible,or 'material' object. We don't know the state of something until we observe it,like Schrodinger's cat,being both alive and dead until we observe it and know for sure what state it's in.
His Nobel Prize was based on his work in Quantum Theory,NOT "proving" the universe is spiritual.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with the universe being "spiritual". There are ZERO experiments surrounding the spiritual realm,there are no peer reviewed studies,no experiments that were tested and repeated,not a single scientist that has ever suggested as much,and not one shred of evidence that hints toward the magical realm of the supernatural.

You're claim was,it was proven,using scientific data,studies and experiments conducted by many scientists,through testing and repeating,and ultimately all writing peer reviewed papers that PROVE the universe is spiritual.

That's your claim,and it's ridiculous. No such studies,experiments,or peer reviewed anything exists on the matter.
Now if you disagree with all that,all you gotta do is provide this peer reviewed proof,which you have not done yet.

"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."

Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays";

Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
http://www.informationphilo...

Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:

Eugene Wigner
Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.

i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

You're wrong again , the measurement problem has nothing to do with superpositioning or wave function collapse. Again, you're just talking out of your uneducated , atheist , loser mouth. There are mathematical formulas demonstrating the universe lacks a privileged center, origin of calendar time, preferred direction yet one appearing in the human consciousness. This is not opinion, this is demonstrated mathematical fact with binary absolution .

also, there are tons of experiments proving the universe is spiritual including photon entanglement, time reversal symmetry, and numerous DSE experiments that have all debunked atheist religious
materialism and demonstrate the immaterial , spiritual nature of the universe.

However I don't expect your uneducated mind to understand any of this. Sorry, please go back to school, then maybe you can formalize your writing and thinking skills and you'll realize that education does pay off.

No,I'm right. And your anger and frustration are showing again.
------------------
"also, there are tons of experiments proving the universe is spiritual
including photon entanglement, time reversal symmetry, and numerous DSE
experiments that have all debunked atheist religious..."

Not only don't any of these have a single thing to do with the "spiritual realm",but none of it proves the universe is spiritual,nor are there any studies or repeatable experiments with factual conclusions backed with peer reviewed data that say it is.
Not one single scientist has EVER made the claim that not only does the spiritual realm even exist at all,but the universe itself is spiritual. Not one. Ever.

Those are scientific tests observing very small objects and particles on the quantum level,and mathematically theorizing on things they can't see,but that doesn't mean ghosts,goblins and 'spirits'.
It's all based on understanding the workings of the natural universe,not involving the supernatural realm at all.

You keep dancing around it,so when are you going to provide this "proof"?