The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?  (Read 2054 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?

Your Thoughts?

Alan

No, that would be suggesting that the Universe is only a part of consciousness and does not exist if there is nobody to observe it.  I am quite sure the Universe is still there when one of us loses consciousness and passes away and I am also sure that the Earth was here before humans existed as the layers of the planets shows us.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
"Observation" has shown scientifically that on the fundamental scale at least particles react to being observed.
So you admit that, on your scale, a photon multiplier is conscious. That raises a very important ethical question: if murder is bad, can I scrap my car, or eat vegetables, with a clear conscience?

The only rational alternative answer to your original question is "obviously not".
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
The only possible answers I could get is that, time and not universe, is the product of our conscious, is occurs a long the observer is alive and stops and cease to exist at the moment the conscious die...
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
"Observation" has shown scientifically that on the fundamental scale at least particles react to being observed.
So you admit that, on your scale, a photon multiplier is conscious. That raises a very important ethical question: if murder is bad, can I scrap my car, or eat vegetables, with a clear conscience?

The only rational alternative answer to your original question is "obviously not".

Your answer is highly rational, it makes as much sense as most of dear 'Boxes" statements do, and you can do a lot better than post such inane nonsense.

Nonsense remains nonsense regardless of the source of the nonsense, be it from God, Albert Einstein or a moderator on the particular forum, nonsense is nonsense period!

Alan
« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 12:51:38 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The only possible answers I could get is that, time and not universe, is the product of our conscious, is occurs a long the observer is alive and stops and cease to exist at the moment the conscious die...

We can simply turn that idea on its irrational head by saying the universe was the consciousness  that created time so that it could exist, before it came into existence.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
"Observation" has shown scientifically that on the fundamental scale at least particles react to being observed.
So you admit that, on your scale, a photon multiplier is conscious. That raises a very important ethical question: if murder is bad, can I scrap my car, or eat vegetables, with a clear conscience?

The only rational alternative answer to your original question is "obviously not".

Your answer is highly rational, it makes as much sense as most of dear 'Boxes" statements do, and you can do a lot better than post such inane nonsense.

Nonsense remains nonsense regardless of the source of the nonsense, be it from God, Albert Einstein or a moderator on the particular forum, nonsense is nonsense period!

Alan

I beg to differ.
 

Offline Ethos_

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


I beg to differ.
I do as well.......................Suggesting that consciousness was present at the Big Bang sounds a great deal like NONSENCE too!
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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


I beg to differ.
I do as well.......................Suggesting that consciousness was present at the Big Bang sounds a great deal like NONSENCE too!

How can you possible know that?, who says the big bang was the beginning of all existence or the universe is everything that exists and "there is no need too "shout" to get your point over.?

Either energy is eternal and the blind cause of everything, or some form of no-material reality beyond human comprehension caused the universe to exist by contemplation.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
So new age woo then.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?

Your Thoughts?

Alan
You surprise me Alan. This is a perfectly valid question which should have been placed in the b]Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology[/b] where questions like this belong. This forum is for new theories, and this is not a theory but a question. A good question in fact.

The answer to your question is no. It's inconceivable for a universe to exist which depends on the existence of such an observer. Such observers are created by such universes by the process of evolution. If such a universe can't exist before they're created then they couldn't be created. You don't believe that the universe didn't exist before someone was around to take notice of it, do you? If you did then where did such observers come from? Why do you think they'd be required to exist for the universe to be able to exist.

Recall the history of the universe from the Big Bang onward. Not even life existed before there were suns which went supernova which created the elements from which we are constructed.
« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 17:47:44 by PmbPhy »
 

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
You surprise me Alan. This is a perfectly valid question which should have been placed in the b]Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology[/b] where questions like this belong. This forum is for new theories, and this is not a theory but a question. A good question in fact.

The answer to your question is no. It's inconceivable for a universe to exist which depends on the existence of such an observer. Such observers are created by such universes by the process of evolution. If such a universe can't exist before they're created then they couldn't be created. You don't believe that the universe didn't exist before someone was around to take notice of it, do you? If you did then where did such observers come from? Why do you think they'd be required to exist for the universe to be able to exist.

Recall the history of the universe from the Big Bang onward. Not even life existed before there were suns which went supernova which created the elements from which we are constructed.

Pete we just do not know what existed at the Big Bang or if anything existed before it. I put the thread here to avoid offending the delicate sensitivities of some member, who back up in horror at any suggestion,   other than "the universe is just a huge mindless material object like a colossal rock".

Consciousness is not something you can package in a box, it is something with which we can contemplate all of existence and range in back in time in thought, from the moment of creation until the end of time

With our consciousness we can reach out into the depths of truth and extend our awareness far out into the vast boundless universe'

Only a conscious being can know that it is alive, that other things are inanimate and others are alive like it!

Our thoughts are not physical objects, love is more than a physical construct of the brain, compassion and loyalty to the point of dying in the place of your buddy during warfare is not a physical thing.

Empathy toward the suffering of an animal from which evolution would not reward us because it is counter to the survival of the species.

We are much more than just bags of watery protoplasm, just waiting for entropy to catch up and cause our deaths. "We are part of a greater reality of something that cares".

In some people they are dominated by Richard Dawkins "selfish genes", but we do not have to submit to our selfish genes and can replace them with "Selfless altruistic genes" that are counter to the concept of blind evolution.

Evolution has its place, but the likes of Adolf Hitler used this theory as justification for his master race philosophy, leading to the Holocaust death camps which were a prime an example of devolution, not positive evolution.

Just imagine the colossal waste of human potential due to this unspeakable evil, how many great minds were destroyed by this monstrous ideology.

We are conscious entities contained in a physical body that are our clothes we wear during our physical existence on planet earth. I am not an atheist and have a real reason for rejecting my previous position as an angry atheist.
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
You mean well, they couldn't be "existing inside of it", but as you said they couldn't be "around" of it, incorrect, is very possible that an observer could exist outside the universe, but for that you would have to accept the existence of multiple universes, and the collision betwen two or more an experiment to observe the results... Such observer would than be apart of time, simple by being observing from outside...

 Even thoug I do believe that we are relating the conscience as result of the universe, when for me it's clearly that it is resultant of time, you don't need to observe something, can be anything  even a frozen frame of absolutely black or white, but for be necessary more than exiting or not, you would need time to observe, much more than a universe providing something to be observed...

 Time could be indeed a mechanism our awareness evolved to be able to observe, measure, shape, to create, time to eat, time to sleep, time to hunt, time to breath, multiply this for billions of years of evolution, and you'll have a very solid concept about time, which you could use to study the very universe, even relate time with it, all to be able to observe and measure, but than again, it's time real from the universe perspective? Or it is just something ours brains develop to be able to observe anything?
 And even if we prove that time is real, how could we be so sure that its not subjection?
« Last Edit: 27/06/2016 23:06:21 by Alex Siqueira »
 

Offline Ethos_

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


How can you possible know that?, who says the big bang was the beginning of all existence or the universe is everything that exists and "there is no need too "shout" to get your point over.?
I really didn't mean to offend anyone Alan so I'll offer my apology to all those who may have taken it that way.
Quote from: Alan McDougall


or some form of no-material reality beyond human comprehension caused the universe to exist by contemplation.
To repeat a reply you made to one of my offerings: "How can you possibly know that?"
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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


How can you possible know that?, who says the big bang was the beginning of all existence or the universe is everything that exists and "there is no need too "shout" to get your point over.?
I really didn't mean to offend anyone Alan so I'll offer my apology to all those who may have taken it that way.
Quote from: Alan McDougall


or some form of no-material reality beyond human comprehension caused the universe to exist by contemplation.
To repeat a reply you made to one of my offerings: "How can you possibly know that?"

I do not know it!  It is just a belief which I will not try to prove, other than I think that there must be an "Uncaused- Cause" of all existence, something that started the whole thing, call it God or the primordial consciousness or non-material spirit, or first thought, or the alpha point moment, that pervades and sustains all of reality. Maybe it is the supplier of an inexhaustible source of energy that cycles back between itself and creation in an everlasting loop.

Or we are left with the uncomfortable idea of "Infinite Regression' which answers nothing. My limited logic seems to insist that everything must have had a beginning?

Is that so silly of me?
 

Offline Ethos_

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


My limited logic seems to insist that everything must have had a beginning?
When you say "everything" I'll assume you mean the Cosmos. There are those who also freely choose to reject the idea that a beginning was necessary. "My limited logic" sees no absolute need for this beginning you refer to.


Quote from: Alan McDougall

Is that so silly of me?
No more silly than for me to view things a bit differently than yourself.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Pete we just do not know what existed at the Big Bang or if anything existed before it.
I agree but I'm confused. What does this have to do with either the subject or what I posted?

Quote from: Alan McDougall
Consciousness is not something you can package in a box, ...
I disagree. And I call that box a "skull".

Quote from: Alan McDougall
...it is something with which we can contemplate all of existence and range in back in time in thought, from the moment of creation until the end of time
So you were getting at trying to suggest that the universe has a consciousness because it existed before animals who are conscious?

Quote from: Alan McDougall
With our consciousness we can reach out into the depths of truth and extend our awareness far out into the vast boundless universe'
How can you extend your awareness in the way you assert that you can?

Quote from: Alan McDougall
Our thoughts are not physical objects, love is more than a physical construct of the brain, compassion and loyalty to the point of dying in the place of your buddy during warfare is not a physical thing.
While true I don't see the point or the relationship to this subject.

Quote from: Alan McDougall
Evolution has its place, but the likes of Adolf Hitler used this theory as justification for his master race philosophy, leading to the Holocaust death camps which were a prime an example of devolution, not positive evolution.
Again I don't see your point. People misuse what science gives us. That's been a fact since man discovered how to use the bone of an animal to smash the head of someone he didn't like.

Quote from: Alan McDougall
Just imagine the colossal waste of human potential due to this unspeakable evil, how many great minds were destroyed by this monstrous ideology.
Are you saying that evolution is a monstrous ideology? If so, why?

Quote from: Alan McDougall
We are conscious entities contained in a physical body that are our clothes we wear during our physical existence on planet earth. I am not an atheist and have a real reason for rejecting my previous position as an angry atheist.
Okay. That's all fine and everything. But I'm at a total loss as to the purpose of the contents of your post.

I didn't know that you were an angry atheist. What is that exactly? What were you angry at?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile


How can you possible know that?, who says the big bang was the beginning of all existence or the universe is everything that exists and "there is no need too "shout" to get your point over.?
I really didn't mean to offend anyone Alan so I'll offer my apology to all those who may have taken it that way.
Quote from: Alan McDougall


or some form of no-material reality beyond human comprehension caused the universe to exist by contemplation.
To repeat a reply you made to one of my offerings: "How can you possibly know that?"

I do not know it!  It is just a belief which I will not try to prove, other than I think that there must be an "Uncaused- Cause" of all existence, something that started the whole thing, call it God or the primordial consciousness or non-material spirit, or first thought, or the alpha point moment, that pervades and sustains all of reality. Maybe it is the supplier of an inexhaustible source of energy that cycles back between itself and creation in an everlasting loop.

Or we are left with the uncomfortable idea of "Infinite Regression' which answers nothing. My limited logic seems to insist that everything must have had a beginning?

Is that so silly of me?

You have started mentioning ''God'' in a few posts now, I think your intentions are not of a science purpose and you are slowly slipping into showing your true ''colours''.

You are ''spamming'' the forum with your posts more than I ever have and I am the biggest ''troll'' there ever was.

Are you lonely?
 
The following users thanked this post: IAMREALITY

Offline Ethos_

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

You have started mentioning ''God'' in a few posts now, I think your intentions are not of a science purpose and you are slowly slipping into showing your true ''colours''.
For once you and I appear to agree Mr. Box.

Quote from: Thebox

You are ''spamming'' the forum with your posts more than I ever have

He'll need to spend much more time and effort if he's ever going to catch up with you Mr. Box.

Quote from: Thebox
and I am the biggest ''troll'' there ever was.
I'm elated to hear you finally admit that fact Sir.

Quote from: Thebox
Are you lonely?
How could any of us be lonely at TNS with trolls ready and eager to pounce a every opportunity?
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Of course it doesn't.  Hell, based on the knowledge we currently have on hand, the universe managed to exist for billions upon billions of years with no consciousness there to observe it.

From what we know, consciousness is a relatively new development within the cosmos, and the cosmos itself couldn't care less about it.  Hell, if anything, the universe as a whole seems hell bent on eradicating it!  The universe is a hostile place, largely non-conducive to the evolution of consciousness.  Think of how many natural ways there are for us to perish on our planet alone?  Then you take some external causes, and the possibilities for our destruction are infinite!  There are so many ways for us to be obliterated within our universe, for life to be completely eradicated.  Because the universe couldn't care less about us or our consciousness.  The universe couldn't care less about life.  Humans are insignificant nothings as far as the universe as a whole is concerned.  So no, the universe also couldn't care less about there being a conscious being there to observe it.  And if there was some consciousness there that conceived creation to begin with, I would find it beyond likely that it wouldn't have made the universe so downright hostile towards anything that might also achieve it. 

That's one of the biggest points those overly religious nuts always fail to consider.  Why if a universe was created for us, would it be so downright hostile of an environment towards us?  Just one of those little logical things that gets in the way of their ideology.  But that's a discussion for a different day I guess.
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Of course it doesn't.  Hell, based on the knowledge we currently have on hand, the universe managed to exist for billions upon billions of years with no consciousness there to observe it.

From what we know, consciousness is a relatively new development within the cosmos, and the cosmos itself couldn't care less about it.  Hell, if anything, the universe as a whole seems hell bent on eradicating it!  The universe is a hostile place, largely non-conducive to the evolution of consciousness.  Think of how many natural ways there are for us to perish on our planet alone?  Then you take some external causes, and the possibilities for our destruction are infinite!  There are so many ways for us to be obliterated within our universe, for life to be completely eradicated.  Because the universe couldn't care less about us or our consciousness.  The universe couldn't care less about life.  Humans are insignificant nothings as far as the universe as a whole is concerned.  So no, the universe also couldn't care less about there being a conscious being there to observe it.  And if there was some consciousness there that conceived creation to begin with, I would find it beyond likely that it wouldn't have made the universe so downright hostile towards anything that might also achieve it. 

That's one of the biggest points those overly religious nuts always fail to consider.  Why if a universe was created for us, would it be so downright hostile of an environment towards us?  Just one of those little logical things that gets in the way of their ideology.  But that's a discussion for a different day I guess.


 If wasn't hostile we wouldn't have a imunologic system, "evolved", we wouldn't be able to become humans in the first place, Repitiles forever...  It's really unlikely that the creator was a repitale nor a humanoid, but in terms of awarenes, we humans are more related with universe than a reptile... So once and again, as much more hostile, the worst for weak life, but the better for the dominant species, us...

  And I will go further, even if outhere are aliens evolved, flying around with super fast ships, what in hell make one thing that they are smarter than us?
 I really doubt that any civilization out there, would have evolved the society so dependant on money as our is, they where probably not subjected to oxigen blue atmosphere making things difficult... For them fly a space ship could be as is to us to drive a car, we don't need to know how it work, we simple do...

 Do anyone serious believe that aliens would need money, hand craft to build machines to build other machines the way we did? Dig down the planet to refine minerals and all that, of course you could create a few ships, but do you really believe more complex than ours? With our systems and also the human very complex and strong body?

 Its a little bit apart of the question about consious after death, but we certainly missing a secund species point of view to compare, as long we don't interact with another inteligent self aware species that can at least talk, we can't possible know for real, only imagine the anwser...
  Of course there is life out there, inteligent too, but even if one travels trought here, they woud be more conected with the universe than us, doesn't necessarily mean that they understand things as we do, and they can't build as good too, humans are a way above the scaduale...
 They had bilions of years, we are like the short powerfull version, their too old already, as they say DNA canot be transformed into something different only enchanced, ours is still prety new if you thing about it... That's why we have to be conscious for the universe and preserve and enchance planets in the future, colonize, don't listen to those depressive humans that hate humans they don't know what they talking about, do they expect to find such peacefull and warmt aproche out there?
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile

 If wasn't hostile we wouldn't have a imunologic system, "evolved", we wouldn't be able to become humans in the first place, Repitiles forever...  It's really unlikely that the creator was a repitale nor a humanoid, but in terms of awarenes, we humans are more related with universe than a reptile... So once and again, as much more hostile, the worst for weak life, but the better for the dominant species, us...

  And I will go further, even if outhere are aliens evolved, flying around with super fast ships, what in hell make one thing that they are smarter than us?
 I really doubt that any civilization out there, would have evolved the society so dependant on money as our is, they where probably not subjected to oxigen blue atmosphere making things difficult... For them fly a space ship could be as is to us to drive a car, we don't need to know how it work, we simple do...

 Do anyone serious believe that aliens would need money, hand craft to build machines to build other machines the way we did? Dig down the planet to refine minerals and all that, of course you could create a few ships, but do you really believe more complex than ours? With our systems and also the human very complex and strong body?

 Its a little bit apart of the question about consious after death, but we certainly missing a secund species point of view to compare, as long we don't interact with another inteligent self aware species that can at least talk, we can't possible know for real, only imagine the anwser...
  Of course there is life out there, inteligent too, but even if one travels trought here, they woud be more conected with the universe than us, doesn't necessarily mean that they understand things as we do, and they can't build as good too, humans are a way above the scaduale...
 They had bilions of years, we are like the short powerfull version, their too old already, as they say DNA canot be transformed into something different only enchanced, ours is still prety new if you thing about it... That's why we have to be conscious for the universe and preserve and enchance planets in the future, colonize, don't listen to those depressive humans that hate humans they don't know what they talking about, do they expect to find such peacefull and warmt aproche out there?

My apologies, but I literally had zero idea of what you're trying to say here or what points of mine you were attempting to rebut, if any.  So unfortunately, if you were wanting a reply, I will not be able to accommodate...
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
It's hard for me to organize my thoughts sometimes cause I writing down some intelligent life concepts, so I related your post with my notes, and when you say that destruction and the universe is a hostile place, largely non-conducive to the evolution of consciousness.

 I need to disagree, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here in he first place, violence and hostility shapes the body stronger, this thinking as species, if it wasn't a hostile place that seems to be against life existence, never would have need to some bacteria's have evolved, they would have remained as the sophisticated being as they are, the necessity due hostile events and massive extinction shaped our bodies, made us stronger, and as much as I would like to disagree if you want to remain conscious you have a better chance to do it inside a hostile environment, the non-hostile enviroment would have no need to evolution of complex life... We being humans, can't split evolution when talking about conscious, cause we never had the chance to compare ours with another inteligent self-aware species, and untill we can't, we can only gess, and each one of us would be right and wrong. I trully witch we could, we can't, lets say that our source of information is not a reliable one...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
It is Descartes one step removed. "I think therefore the universe is."
Illogical. The universe is, and as a pretty improbable consequence of its evolution, I  think.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


 If wasn't hostile we wouldn't have a imunologic system


Far too anthropocentric. The universe isn't hostile, just indifferent. Local bits of it have evolved to modify their environment to suit themselves, and this is sometimes interpreted as hostility. As far as any other species is concerned, you are either lunch; a competitor for lunch; or a convenient means of transport to, or medium of growth for, lunch.
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 156
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
indeed it was just a very lame reference to the cloning problems, not cloning itself but he act of try to artificialy re-produce a complex DNA, to point that instantlly produce a DNA is impossible, either for the being itself as for the creator, both need time to evolve, time to become...
 About the hostile word, I was just trying to keep using the concept the first guy whose describle it as hostile, for me universe is always about energy, density and temperature, never stoped to thing if it is something else or if it really need a conscious observer in order to exist or not...
 And as much as I think about it, more it sounds like time is for conscious observing, as universe is for existence, enabling us, humans, to observe the universe trought time...
We could ask the anwser, the problem is to whom?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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