0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Imagine that Wigner is approaching a quantum traffic light with two possibilities, red and green; at the same time his friend is approaching the same light from the perpendicular road. Being busy Americans, they both choose green. Unfortunately, their choices are contradictory; if both choices materialize at the same time, there would be pandemonium. Obviously, only one of their choices counts, but whose? After many decades, three physicists at different places and times (Ludwig Bass in Australia, myself at Oregon, and Casey Blood at Rutgers, New Jersey), independently discovered the solution of the paradox: consciousness is one, nonlocal and cosmic, behind the two people’s local individuality. They both choose but from this nonordinary state of one consciousness (which I call the quantum self) where there is no local individuality or selfishness so contradiction can be avoided. This allows the common sense result that in many such crossings, Wigner and his friend each would get green fifty percent of the time; yet for any individual crossing, a creative opportunity for getting green is left open for each.'' [/b]http://www.amitgoswami.org/consciousness-quantum-physics/But then again, it would be better if you just read Ludvic Bass' account in his paper Hermethena.
A lot of QM is based on imaginary scenarios like the one above. QM can predict a lot of things but it does not mean that they will become true or a fact only that its a possibility.Quote: "To expand this further, Bass shows how if there is a singular master consciousness, then it may have direct applications for psychic conditional theories, which usually remain outside the conventional wisdom of science"It may be logical reasoning but a lot of his stuff is full if, may and could and not will.
So far, it's the most logical conclusion based from the soil of QM.
it isn't that "we are all thinking rigidly within the bounds of our experience". it's that you have nearly zero evidence that supports your conclusion, and the evidence you DO have does not even properly support your hypothesis. the one-electron universe hypothesis, as you have said yourself, is a past tense hypothesis and is unrealistic based on information from other well supported theories. you have drawn some disanalogies like this to support the hypothesis' worth of being considered.Quote from: Mr. ScientistImagine that Wigner is approaching a quantum traffic light with two possibilities, red and green; at the same time his friend is approaching the same light from the perpendicular road. Being busy Americans, they both choose green. Unfortunately, their choices are contradictory; if both choices materialize at the same time, there would be pandemonium. Obviously, only one of their choices counts, but whose? After many decades, three physicists at different places and times (Ludwig Bass in Australia, myself at Oregon, and Casey Blood at Rutgers, New Jersey), independently discovered the solution of the paradox: consciousness is one, nonlocal and cosmic, behind the two people’s local individuality. They both choose but from this nonordinary state of one consciousness (which I call the quantum self) where there is no local individuality or selfishness so contradiction can be avoided. This allows the common sense result that in many such crossings, Wigner and his friend each would get green fifty percent of the time; yet for any individual crossing, a creative opportunity for getting green is left open for each.'' [/b]http://www.amitgoswami.org/consciousness-quantum-physics/But then again, it would be better if you just read Ludvic Bass' account in his paper Hermethena.Quote from: that mad manA lot of QM is based on imaginary scenarios like the one above. QM can predict a lot of things but it does not mean that they will become true or a fact only that its a possibility.Quote: "To expand this further, Bass shows how if there is a singular master consciousness, then it may have direct applications for psychic conditional theories, which usually remain outside the conventional wisdom of science"It may be logical reasoning but a lot of his stuff is full if, may and could and not will.Quote from: Mr. ScientistSo far, it's the most logical conclusion based from the soil of QM.i just want to bold the thing that i think is the biggest flaw in all of this. you have non responded properly to it, just repeated that it's logical and makes sense. it's okay to accept this as a possibility, but don't talk as though it's been proven, it's barely even past the hypothesis stage and you're putting words like "proven" in the title? you need to put this in the context of science. it is a fringe hypothesis. it might be true. pink unicorns that fly around the earth might be true, but it's unlikely - so don't present your hypothesis as though it is likely.besides all this, how is this hypothesis useful, even if it is right? you didn't answer that. it might be interesting and all that, but it has no use, and no further questions can really be asked after finding out the answer which also have no use.
Fool.
You ask all the wrong questions. Never mind understand which questions are allowed.
I was frustrated then.
so remind me - what has this got to do with only a single consciousness existing..?