The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?  (Read 2024 times)

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?

Your Thoughts?

Alan


 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Most likely yes, for me the prove for the conscious of the universe, comes with the dinosaurs when complex life, witch seems to be universe final goal, came to reproduce using eggs... I mean if you think about it the true sons of earth are by any means reptiles.
 I mean you think about it sounds ridiculous, but if you put aside human logic and emotions, and look to the frame with a blank mind, the alike a egg and his development has with the planets themselves is impressive, and even to this very day birds are still using the same process to reproduce, and have being very successful at evolve...
  Thing about a planet, crost, mantle, outer core, all that with the single objective to provide shelter and warm to the gem on the center of it, it also needs a environment subjected to heat, and so seems to be the relation with planets to their stars, eventually hatching the crost, forming more complex elements and black holes leading to another different worlds, but moonless smaller and different copies of the universe birth itself...  I mean look around you, there is a pattern on every thing, and at the lower scale we, complex life are the result...
   So if you ask me if the chicken knows what their egg needs, and take care of them, and so where the dinosaurs, and I picked up the reptiles cause they seem to be the most primitive conscious life to have existed in the early days so one could say that their conciense where not given by ancestors concept, but taught how to be by the planet itself, something like "here, hey dinosaurs, this is the way I reproduce my stars, you exist within me, you should do the same", and who could say it didn't work for millions of years...

 The big question should be did the universe exponentially created itself or it was produced?
 As a experiment you train your dog, it doesn't need to know the answers it just need to see what please its owners the most...
   It's a perspective, and any of us could have many points of view and we all don't know, witch creates a mind blow fact, if none of us, conscientious beings can actually know, the universe conscious became what we decided it to be, and every single one of us would be correct, and due the infinite amount of possibilities, we all would be correct at the same time, and universe conscious would "truly" become, what we want to see..

 If we need to see with eyes and sensors, not at all, it will be there anyway, and inevitable life in the cosmos would reappear, evolve and colonize again and again, and with the right knowledge, you, me and any conscious beings can shape and give born to worlds, and theses worlds like ours, earth itself, has become what we planed for it, one could say that from the name to the surfaces functions the planet only exist due and drought our individual and collective conscious...

 The question you should be asking yourself should be, what would have become of earth if, since the beginning, threes wouldn't have died and accumulated, if fishes do not death the plankton and the plankton its own share and so it goes, it would basically have changed many events that occurred on earth during billions of years, would Earth is still exist? I mean the blue water planet, or the oxygen that they and we didn't breath by not have existed would have chained other trillion of different possible scenarios that would in the big scale have killed earth? The excessive minerals that the trees wouldn't have filtered, the co2 that they wouldn't have trapped, the water all the living beings wouldn't have drink...

 If Earth would have be affected by all this non-events? Sure...
It's most obvious that the main purpose of complex life is to have means to observe the environment and shape it, change it, the planet is mater and our bodies are made from the same stuff, we where born from the planet, from the cosmic system, and are conscious? Self-aware? Do you have a name? Do you have a family or others entities that you care about and do you shape your environment?
 Well the human artificial concept is the miss understanding, we are made of mater, no mater if we are very complex, we came from the planet, we are both made from the same stuff, we are than the same as planets that are not rounded and have arms, brains, hands, feet, but moonless made of mater and born from it, so I mean look around you... You born from Earth and if all life cease to exist, means that the planet failed, death is a example, your body will be buried, doesn't mean that your conscience didn't existed and without records one could never prove, but than again you grave would have a name wrote on it, a physical prove that you have being conscious at some point in time, and so could be those planets out there, maybe they are just like dead bodies now, doesn't mean that they weren't alive and so may other still can became, as long there is heat out there someone would be observing, thus existing...
« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 04:35:42 by Alex Siqueira »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
most likelly yes, for me the prove for the concious of the universe, comes with the dinnosaus when complex life, whitch seems to be universe final goal, came to reproduce using eggs... I mean if you think about it the true sons of earth are by any means reptiles.
 i mean you think about it sounds redicuous, but if you put aside human logic and emotions, and look to the frame with a blank mind, the semelhance a egg and his development has with the planets themselves is impressive, and even to this very day birds are still using the same process to reproduce, and have being very sucessfull at evolve...
  Thing about a planet, crost, manttle, outer core, all that with the single objective to provide shelter and warm to the gem on the center of it, it also needs a enviroment subjected to heat, and so seems to be the relation with planets to their stars, eventually hatching the crost, forming more complex elements and black holes leading to another different worlds, but noneless smaller and different copies of the universe birt itself...  I mean look around you, there is a pathern on every thing, and at the lower scale we, complex life are the result...
   So if you ask me if the chicken knows what their egg needs, and take care of them, and so where the dinnosaurs, and I picked up the reptiles cause they seem to be the most primitive concious life to have existed in the early days so one could say that their concients where not given by ancestors concept, but taught how to be by the planet itself, something like "here, hey dinnosaurs, this is the way I reproduce my stars, you exist within me, you should do the same", and who could say it didn't work for milions of years...

 The big question should be did the universe expontainely created itself or it was produced?
 As a experiment you train your dog, it doesn't need to know the awnser it just need to see what please its owners the most...
   It's a perspective, and any of us could have many points of view and we all don't know, whitch creates a mind blow fact, if none of us, concietious beings can cactually know, the universe concious became what we decided it to be, and every single one of us would be correct, and due the infinite amount of possibilities, we all would be correct at the same time, and universe concius would "trully" become, what we want to see..

 If whe need to see with eyes and sensors, not at all, it will be there anyway, and inevitable life in the cosmos would reapear, evolve and colonize again and again, and whith the right knoledge, you, me and any concious beings can shape and give born to worlds, and thises worlds like ours, earth itself, has become what we planed for it, one could say that from the name to the surfaces functions the planet only exist duea and trought our individual and coletive concious...

 The question you should be asking yourself should be, what would have become of earth if, since the begining, threes wouldn't have died and acumulated, if fishes do not eath the plancton and the plancton its own share and so it goes, it would basiclly have changed many events that occured on earth during billions of years, would Earth is still exist? I mean the blue water planet, or the oxigen that they and we didn't breat by not have existed would have chained other trillion of different possible scenarios that would in the big scale have killed earth? The execive minerals that the trees wouldn't have filtered, the co2 that they wouldn't have trapped, the water all the living beings wouldn't have drink...

 If Earth would have be affected by all this non-events? Sure...
It's most obvious that the main purpose of complex life is to have means to observe the enviroment and shape it, change it, the planet is mater and our bodies are made from the same stuff, we where born from the planet, from the cosmic system, and are concious? Self-aware? Do you have a name? Do you have a familie or others entities that you care about and do you shape your enviroment?
 Well the human artificial concept is the miss understanding, we are made of mater, no mater if we are very comples, we came from the planet, we are both made from the same stuff, we are than the same as planets that are not rounded and have arms, brains, hands, feets, but noneless made of mater and born from it, so I mean look around you... You born from Earth and if all life cease to exist, menas that the planet failed, death is a example, your body will be burried, doesn't mean that your conciense didn't existed and without records one could never prove, but than again you sepulture would have a name wrote on it, a physical prove that you have being concious at some point in time, and so could bethose planets out there, maybe they are just like dead bodies now, doesn't mean that they wheren't alive and so may other still can became, as long there is heat out there someone would be observing, thus existing...

"With respect"! it seems that English is not your home language and this makes it somewhat difficult to understand what you are saying.  :)

I suggest that you make use of an English spell checker which will really help you in your posts on the form

That does not mean that I have not taken your comments seriously but I need some time to digest them and come back to you with a meaningful response  :)

Best Regards

Alan
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
It's alright man, you're right it's not native still getting used to it, I wrote down in 10 minutes, corrected now..

 But gladly you took in considerations, the thing is there is no universe, like a infinite vast space, what are out there are local spheres with different temperatures, thus different density, one inside the other, there is no universe, there are spheres in infinite lower scales and also higher scales...
  The question from the human perspective should be "Does the conscious observer needs a universe to exist?"
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The reasoning behind the question of this thread "Does the universe need a conscious observer for it is exist"?, was born out or a fundamental particle only being something real "when it is observed" When observed the particle in question will collapse into either a particle or wave", (maybe on the huge macro scale of the universe something similar happens?)

Schrodinger, famous thought experiment of his "Schrodinger's Kittens" in which a few hypothetical kittens are placed in sealed an isolated box,, which contains an isotope, which emits or does not emit a photon, completely randomly and unpredictably which might unobserved woluld release of a photon activating the poison trap killing the kittens" "or resulting in nothing happening to them by the non-release of the hypothetical poison.

From the outside of the box the kittens are both dead and alive, until the box is opened, and their actual state of being is observed. Only then can we know if they are alive or dead?
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
It's alright man, you're right it's not native still getting used to it, I wrote down in 10 minutes, corrected now..

 But gladly you took in considerations, the thing is there is no universe, like a infinite vast space, what are out there are local spheres with different temperatures, thus different density, one inside the other, there is no universe, there are spheres in infinite lower scales and also higher scales...
  The question from the human perspective should be "Does the conscious observer needs a universe to exist?"


If we use your logic that a consciousness observer can only exist it there is a place in which to exist, namely the universe, then the universe caused the conscious observer to exist and we could equate the universe with the concept of God the creator.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Only if being exist is interpreted as being consciously observed.
So, what is sure is that the universe needs a conscious observer for it to be consciously observed.
AFAIK, no conscious observer was around before cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist back then.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Only if being exist is interpreted as being consciously observed.
So, what is sure is that the universe needs a conscious observer for it to be consciously observed.
AFAIK, no conscious observer was around before cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist back then.

There were plenty conscious observers before the Cambrian explosion , why pick that particular epoch for the emergence of consciousness for the entire universe?
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
True, I agree, but wasn't the Earth back there, it was the third planet of our solar system, it didn't had a name, nor tree, nor animals, nor bacteria, it was simple a rocky planets, witch existed of course, but not the earth... Following the "Schrodinger's Kittens", before the first human named the planet as Earth, the third planet was physically here, but the Earth was born from the collective conscious, one could say that without a conscious observer, the Earth didn't existed until there... So goes to the universe, its a word and concept formed by our collective conscious, remove the collectively you do not need conscious, remove the conscious there will be no universe, everything that will be is being...
 Now Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist? yes, It does, but being will be there anyway...
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Only if being exist is interpreted as being consciously observed.
So, what is sure is that the universe needs a conscious observer for it to be consciously observed.
AFAIK, no conscious observer was around before cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist back then.

There were plenty conscious observers before the Cambrian explosion , why pick that particular epoch for the emergence of consciousness for the entire universe?

I just wanna make sure we are using the same definition of consciousness. Only then we can go to discuss further.

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Only if being exist is interpreted as being consciously observed.
So, what is sure is that the universe needs a conscious observer for it to be consciously observed.
AFAIK, no conscious observer was around before cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist back then.

There were plenty conscious observers before the Cambrian explosion , why pick that particular epoch for the emergence of consciousness for the entire universe?

I just wanna make sure we are using the same definition of consciousness. Only then we can go to discuss further.

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.


Yes our concept of consciousness is the same!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The only evidence we have of the existence of conscious observers is limited to some very unstable chemistry happening in the recent history of one quite small planet, so it would be absurd to suggest that the existence of the entire universe depended on this cosmically insignificant event within it.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The only evidence we have of the existence of conscious observers is limited to some very unstable chemistry happening in the recent history of one quite small planet, so it would be absurd to suggest that the existence of the entire universe depended on this cosmically insignificant event within it.

There is no evidence that planet earth is "cosmically insignificant" it just might be the most significant planet in the entire universe and to state that its it size has something to do with it, is ridiculous! Complex things do not only exist on large things?

You are making an assumption such as the earth being the only planet within our unimaginably vast universe that has life on it, and to go on to say something is absurd without any proof that it is absurd which is an insult to any thinking person.

Your statement of earth saying that due to some "special" "very unstable chemistry" consciousness emerged only on planet earth is absurd, if you compare it to the universe at large which must contain your "Unstable chemistry" in almost infinite amounts, with infinite combinations, with infinite possible outcomes, including life and consciousness.

At the quantum level fundamental particles react by being observed by collapsing into one state or the other, before actually being observed they are not real things, but just mathematical possibilities. There is speculation in some scientific communities that this reaction to being observed could be extrapolated up to the huge macro things of the universe.

The great astronomer Sir James Jean once quoted that "the more he look out  into the universe with his telescope, the less like a great machine it became and the more it looked like a 'Great Thought"
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Do you need a conscious observer internal to yourself to exist?

Edit: You can't say bacteria unless you can count them as a conscious observer.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2016 22:58:58 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Do you need a conscious observer internal to yourself to exist?

Edit: You can't say bacteria unless you can count them as a conscious observer.

You avoid the question by posing your own question that has nothing to do with the question I put forward in this thread "Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist'

I am not talking about a Descartes philosophy of "I think therefor I am" that is the idea that one could know,  intrinsically or subjectively that they existed as separate conscious unique beings. But does their awareness of themselves give rise to their conscious existence , I think not?

To answer my question you must go back in time to some ultimate observer, which observation caused the universe to exist as a product of its consciousness.

Bacteria are very low level conscious observers of their own environment, which we have experienced to our detriment over the course of human history, they know that they live and exists, within a host which is their source of their sustenance.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Beginning with the Big Bang followed by the Inflationary Period over vast amounts of intervening time, it would be without merit to suggest that some form of consciousness was ever present from that first moment until now.

My answer to the question would be an unequivocal (NO)
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
It is Descartes one step removed. "I think therefore the universe is."
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Beginning with the Big Bang followed by the Inflationary Period over vast amounts of intervening time, it would be without merit to suggest that some form of consciousness was ever present from that first moment until now.

My answer to the question would be an unequivocal (NO)

Well you than supporting the theory of multiple dimensions coexisting one parallel one to the other, simple because the conscious observer would have to be existing outside from until that moment non-existing universe, Unless it could disrespect or be apart from the non-existent laws of physics... I mean sound very philosophic but you need atoms in order to be anything, at least inside this universe? Do you agree with multiple parallel dimensions coexisting side by side in higher and lower frequencies inside the same universe? Or where it existed till the moment of the big bang?
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
It is Descartes one step removed. "I think therefore the universe is."

Descartes made his point so what is wrong with 'Something was aware and " It thought and the universe is"
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

Yes our concept of consciousness is the same!

So which of these list do you think are qualified as conscious observer? what makes the difference?
-human
-chimpanzee
-rat
-lizard
-spider
-worm
-jellyfish
-venus flytrap
-apple tree
-bacteria
-virus
-computer with alphago
-iphone 6s
-curiosity rover
-automatic car
-solar cell
-photon multiplier
-thermometer
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

Yes our concept of consciousness is the same!

So which of these list do you think are qualified as conscious observer? what makes the difference?
-human
-chimpanzee
-rat
-lizard
-spider
-worm
-jellyfish
-venus flytrap
-apple tree
-bacteria
-virus
-computer with alphago
-iphone 6s
-curiosity rover
-automatic car
-solar cell
-photon multiplier
-thermometer
None of which existed at the time of the Big Bang and certainly not until much later. I suggest the universe did quite well without any consciousness to support it's existence for a very long time indeed. We exist now because of that history, and the universe did quite well without us or our consciousness.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

Yes our concept of consciousness is the same!

So which of these list do you think are qualified as conscious observer? what makes the difference?
-human
-chimpanzee
-rat
-lizard
-spider
-worm
-jellyfish
-venus flytrap
-apple tree
-bacteria
-virus
-computer with alphago
-iphone 6s
-curiosity rover
-automatic car
-solar cell
-photon multiplier
-thermometer

You know the answers to all those questions so I will not bother you with the obvious.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Beginning with the Big Bang followed by the Inflationary Period over vast amounts of intervening time, it would be without merit to suggest that some form of consciousness was ever present from that first moment until now.

My answer to the question would be an unequivocal (NO)

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Eminent physicist John Wheeler said he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well

Why does the universe exist? Wheeler believes the quest for an answer to that question inevitably entails wrestling with the implications of one of the strangest aspects of modern physics: According to the rules of quantum mechanics, our observations influence the universe at the most fundamental levels.

The boundary between an objective "world out there" and our own subjective consciousness that seemed so clearly defined in physics before the eerie discoveries of the 20th century blurs in quantum mechanics. When physicists look at the basic constituents of reality— atoms and their innards, or the particles of light called photons— what they see depends on how they have set up their experiment. A physicist's observations determine whether an atom, say, behaves like a fluid wave or a hard particle, or which path it follows in traveling from one point to another. From the quantum perspective the universe is an extremely interactive place. Wheeler takes the quantum view and runs with it. 

Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his "delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Fixation is no substitute for observation.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Fixation is no substitute for observation.

"Fixation" Now that is a meaninglessness statement no one on this thread has an unnatural interest in anything , if you do not want to respond to me at least debunk the great John Wheeler.

"Observation" has shown scientifically that on the fundamental scale at least particles react to being observed.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length