Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Alan McDougall on 25/06/2016 17:37:23
-
Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?
Your Thoughts?
Alan
-
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...
-
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
-
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?"
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
It is Descartes one step removed. "I think therefore the universe is."
-
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?
-
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"
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Fixation is no substitute for observation.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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".
-
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...
-
"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
-
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.
-
"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.
-
I beg to differ.
I do as well.......................Suggesting that consciousness was present at the Big Bang sounds a great deal like NONSENCE too!
-
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.
-
So new age woo then.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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?"
-
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.
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?
-
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.
Is that so silly of me?
No more silly than for me to view things a bit differently than yourself.
-
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?
Consciousness is not something you can package in a box, ...
I disagree. And I call that box a "skull".
...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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
-
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.
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?
-
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.
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.
and I am the biggest ''troll'' there ever was.
I'm elated to hear you finally admit that fact Sir.
Are you lonely?
How could any of us be lonely at TNS with trolls ready and eager to pounce a every opportunity?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
No the universe doesn't need an observer for it to exist. This could only be true if you believed the universe revolves around you, which it most certainly does not. It objectively exists, although we subjectively interpret it.
-
No the universe doesn't need an observer for it to exist. This could only be true if you believed the universe revolves around you, which it most certainly does not. It objectively exists, although we subjectively interpret it.
Are you positive can you prove it?
-
No the universe doesn't need an observer for it to exist. This could only be true if you believed the universe revolves around you, which it most certainly does not. It objectively exists, although we subjectively interpret it.
Are you positive can you prove it?
Science has proven it in a million and one different ways. As has logic.
But as can be proven by the billions who actually believe in the silliness of religion, sometimes you can have all the science, logic and facts in the world and people will just believe what they wanna believe anyway.
-
Science has proven it in a million and one different ways. As has logic.
But as can be proven by the billions who actually believe in the silliness of religion, sometimes you can have all the science, logic and facts in the world and people will just believe what they wanna believe anyway.
If consciousness is an illusion, then the existence of a conscious observer could well be dependent on the nature of the illusion. By introspection, it is possible to experience that life is a singular moment in the creation of the universe.
The nature of existence is poorly understood by science... The Big Bang theory cannot prove or disprove the true purpose of the biological nonlocality of consciousness.
-
To solve consciousness you just have to look at the increasingly complex chemical systems of other biological life such as bacteria, plants, insects, reptiles, mammals...
If you believe the human nervous systems separate in function to that of other creatures i.e a soul, then you are taking too much liberty with the scientific principle. We know that behaviours are decided moments before we even consciously register the action. We know that the brain is compartmentalized and lobotomies will inhibit functionality of some but not all areas of cognition. We understand well how the nervous system works and fairly recently even the more misunderstood topics of the brain i.e sleep, memory formation, savants.