[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

The Only One Mind

And here is where things get even stranger. Referring back to reference (1), the work of Ludvic Bass shows how that the plural ''I'' or singular consciousness seems to be an illusion itself. By his mathematical proof
he shows empiracle evidence that there can ONLY BE ONE CONSCIOUSNESS! It truely was a remarkable work, and was heavily influenced by Schrodingers analysis of the world (. Now - if indeed there is only one consciousness
ever in existence then that really helps the physical theories of quantum mechanics to make assertions concerning the psychological problem of time. If there is only one consciousness, then there is also only one experience of
time! I've just shown consistently that if there is only one time, then there seems to be indications that there is only one time dimension and not two as proposed by the Two-Time Physics, which involves a metric with an extra
time dimension, but due to symmetry, it also requires an extra spatial dimension, so the theory is actually quite costly in the sense it is even more complicated.

Again however, if there is only one time ever, why then can we experience time singularily? Is time like a field in which we are all submerged within its structure, sharing this strange imaginary manifold, or can consciousness,
the only one consciousness imply that even the experience of time is also singular (don't get mixed up with the concept of a singularity here - not intended)?

This is more difficult to comprehend. It would mean that time truely is a product of consciousness itself - or if you prefer, consciousness is a product of time. I prefer the latter condition here. Also, if one where to take relativity
seriously, then our experience of space is also only one space, made itself of the geometric vectors making a three-dimensional continuum - but its hard to even entertain a single space theory simply because how does one interpret
that? It truely would all come down to verging on a solipsistic interpretation of the world, where consciousness, time and space are not shared as experiences by the 6-odd billion minds present on Earth, but rather the experiences
becomes just one experience itself; that same logical reasoning in which Ludvic Bass shows in his paper.

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. This
is really because of the skepticism behind such a theory making it a psuedo-theory at best. But, many scientists in the past have not only entertained the idea that psychic or telekinetic powers where possible, but even
Einstein himself once admitted that if such abilities where true, then it would be a matter of quantum physics - and with the models we have today of quantum physics we might be able to entertain such controversial
theories without any dogmatic paranoia.

In a one-time, one-consciousness theory, we could say that all time has already passed for all observers which actually fits neatly with relativistic equations. In relativity, the diffeomorphisms of the quantized schrodinger
context has itself a decription of a timeless universe. As beautiful as it sounds, the idea of pure timelessness may be an indication of why there is one consciousness only ever present and how time itself had already been
experienced. Hence, the idea is that if all-time has been experienced, then time may as well not exist! Is this what the diffeomorphisms are hinting at?

I must admit, even i was kind of surprised by the idea, and how well it answers for Bass' work. Essentially, a type of unification by logical deduction seems to provide not only a union to a one-time experience in Bass' model, to
the theory of a singular conciousness, to the fitting hyothesis that such a result would lead mathematically to a timeless universe, because it would mean that none of us can be unique when consciousness is involved,
nor can our experience of time, and [exactly] when we have experienced such a passing of time; whether it is you, or President Lincon, to some future mind of a man or a woman, all these experiences of time can only be reduced to one
irreducible block of time. Quite rightly speaking from terminology the timelessness interpretation is called ''Block Time (9).''

1 - Hermathena, a Dublin University Review, 'The Mind of Wigners Friend' 1971 by Ludvic Bass

2 - Parallel Universes; The Search for Other Worlds, 1985, F. A Wolf PhD.

3 - This is the theory of a universe devoid of matter, but only pure force of gravity.

4 - Space does not exist, so time can. Fotini Markopoulou, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (Dated: December 1, 2008)

... also read for interest; Fotini Markopoulou, \The internal description of a causal set: What the universe looks like from the inside", Commun.Math.Phys.
211 (2000) 559-583, arXiv:gr-qc/9811053

5 - From an essay made, i concluded a timelessness creates more problems than what it solves. A paradox concerning this involved the following:


(This was part of a larger work)

[Bored chemist]

"he shows empiracle evidence that there can ONLY BE ONE CONSCIOUSNESS"
Then it must be me.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

What do you mean?

[Bored chemist]

I know that I have a consciousness; you say there's only one; it must be mine.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

I know that I have a consciousness; you say there's only one; it must be mine.

I don't say there is one consciousness. I accept that quantum mechanics predicts this counterintuitive FACT, and reference to this is given by Ludvic Bass who was a student of the legndary schrodinger:

1 - Hermathena, a Dublin University Review, 'The Mind of Wigners Friend' 1971 by Ludvic Bass

[Bored chemist]

Without making some other assumption(s) there's no way that QM can predict anything at all about consciousness.

If this guy says there's only one consciousness and yet we know he's wrong (because you and I are both aware, but you and I are different) then he has got one or more of his assumptions wrong.

It reminds me of the deluded maths prof who claimed to have proved that the existence of God had a probability of (I forget the exact number) about 0.6 or something. He hadn't noticed that the existence of God was a tacit part of one of his (unstated) assumptions.
I wonder if his students have stopped taking the piss out of him yet. After all, if you start with the existence of God as a (hidden) fact, then prove the probability of His existence is 0.6 then not only have you screwed up in making your assumptions, but you have screwed up the arithmetic too.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Without making some other assumption(s) there's no way that QM can predict anything at all about consciousness.

If this guy says there's only one consciousness and yet we know he's wrong (because you and I are both aware, but you and I are different) then he has got one or more of his assumptions wrong.

It reminds me of the deluded maths prof who claimed to have proved that the existence of God had a probability of (I forget the exact number) about 0.6 or something. He hadn't noticed that the existence of God was a tacit part of one of his (unstated) assumptions.
I wonder if his students have stopped taking the piss out of him yet. After all, if you start with the existence of God as a (hidden) fact, then prove the probability of His existence is 0.6 then not only have you screwed up in making your assumptions, but you have screwed up the arithmetic too.

That's simply not true; and a fabricated statement in itself, since;

A) You apparently do not know enough about quantum mechanics to state it cannot say ''anything'' about it - and

B) You have not even read Bass' paper. Might i suggest before you flout it with the highest impunity, read it first.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

This might elevate more of an appealing read:

''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.

[that mad man]

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.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

So far, it's the most logical conclusion based from the soil of QM.

[Bored chemist]

In reallity people don't choose the colour of traffic lights so it's a non-problem.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Terrible analogy. I don't even properly understand it.

[Bored chemist]

Terrible analogy. I don't even properly understand it.

Then you shouldn't have cited it.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Cited what?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Perhaps you could also make these replies more than a few words long?

[Bored chemist]

Cited what?

The terrible analogy.

Anyway, since there are many people in the world and they all have separate consciouses there clearly can't be just one.

[Bored chemist]

Perhaps you could also make these replies more than a few words long?

What for?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Cited what?

The terrible analogy.

Anyway, since there are many people in the world and they all have separate consciouses there clearly can't be just one.

These are points which Bass has certainly raised in his quantum mechanical paper. Did you by any chance get to read it? Because until then, you cannot really speculate on the details.

[Bored chemist]

Since I know that there are more than 1 consiousnes in the world I know that any suggestion that there is only one must be wrong.
I don't need to waste my time on learning the details or even reading it. It's plainly false.

[glovesforfoxes]

i agree with bored chemist wholeheartedly. you don't need to read the bible to know that the idea of Yahweh's existence is not scientifically plausible.

besides that, you have to assume that consciousness is something material, definable. consciousness is larger than the sum of it's parts, i think. scientific research into consciousness is still very much in it's infancy.

also, you're using QM to explain classical phenomenon. why you're attempting this with a biological, complex system when the unification between QM and the macroscopic world has not even been done on the level of simple atomic structures like carbon and graphite is confusing, scientifically, but of course is fascinating []