[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

Your logic restricts this entire hypothesis. Tell me, since i know of only one universe does this mean that the idea of other universes couldn't be plausible? - i mean, this is the logic you are appealing to. Just because you have sense of one thing and not of the other doesn't really disclude the contending theory in any way.

We are already aware of the strange predictions of quantum mechanics, and many scientists realize the difficulties in explaining quantum mechanics when the observer is involved, as so many cases are. This sense is much the same, since we only ever experience the one consciousness, but mathematically, Ludvic Bass (independantly from two other physicists along the same time) predicted the answer to one of the most ambiguous paradox of quantum mechanics, The Mind of Wigners Friend. The answer was only one consciousness existing, and whateverb we experience is but one side of a single (multi-faced) object.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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 []

It does not predict that consciousness is material at all. I do not understand why you have said this.

[Bored chemist]

"Your logic restricts this entire hypothesis. "
It's not just My logic; any logic shows this is rubbish.
"Tell me, since i know of only one universe does this mean that the idea of other universes couldn't be plausible? - i mean, this is the logic you are appealing to."
No it's the exact oposite. I know there's More than one.
"We are already aware of the strange predictions of quantum mechanics,"
And a none of them are proven false by the evidence like your idea.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

"Your logic restricts this entire hypothesis. "
It's not just My logic; any logic shows this is rubbish.
"Tell me, since i know of only one universe does this mean that the idea of other universes couldn't be plausible? - i mean, this is the logic you are appealing to."
No it's the exact oposite. I know there's More than one.
"We are already aware of the strange predictions of quantum mechanics,"
And a none of them are proven false by the evidence like your idea.

Oh you know there is more then one?

Then what the hell are we all doing? We shold hit you with a PhD and you should rewrite physic for us!

[Dimi]

Well I find it hard to reply to this topic, my wording for the idea would be much differently. And... my reply is most likely a ramble

I'd say - break down the consious into seperate levels.

We have a consious which allows us to do daily chores; call this the 'ego' or whatnot. And then I'd say there is a 'pack' conscious. This pack conscious is what we use to work together as a system.

Think about animals in a pack - they work together, right? Why can't humans do it? Of course, we haven't been able to work together for a very long time

But I suppose look at your friends and family. It can work as a pack, sometimes your ideas just flow into each other and you can work on helping each other easily.

Though, if we are going to go even deeper and look at it in terms of energy, then life itself is an illusion then we are at the whims of the energy itself. Since everything IS energy, it would be safe to assume that everything is apart together - not bounded by a shape or form, its only that its being interpreted. That would even be to do with the conscious, if we are just made of this energy, then we would really come from the same place. What's to say what one person sees is how another one percieves.

Time is just a concept created by us just so we can work in a more organised fashion. It is in a way to put a boundary on a boundless thing. Though, we are't made for anything boundless (Thank g-d!!!)

That brings up another interesting question in my mind though - infinity. Is there really a way to comprehend infinity? We just know that it goes on.. its something that doesn't stop. We only make it seem to stop (thereby making it non-infinite) because we need to put a boundary on it in order to comprehend it and not to crash and die.

[Bored chemist]

Mr "Scientist"
you say "Oh you know there is more then one?"
Yes, I know it because of the evidence.
There is, for example, one that realises there's more than one, and a second, who doesn't.

At the moment, the nearest thing to evidence you have is some fairy story about quantum trafic lights.
On that basis, you seem to be trying to rewrite physics.


Do you realise that you cannot win this argument?
If you were right then you would be arguing against yourself so you couldn't hope to win.
If not then you are wrong so you won't win.

[Dimi]

I think it has a nice philosophical debate. It'd be better if it wasn't written in brain-f**k

I do not agree that something like this could ever be proved, we're humans - we have our limits. We can only find with what we have. Can't really ask for more.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Mr "Scientist"
you say "Oh you know there is more then one?"
Yes, I know it because of the evidence.
There is, for example, one that realises there's more than one, and a second, who doesn't.

At the moment, the nearest thing to evidence you have is some fairy story about quantum trafic lights.
On that basis, you seem to be trying to rewrite physics.


Do you realise that you cannot win this argument?
If you were right then you would be arguing against yourself so you couldn't hope to win.
If not then you are wrong so you won't win.

Quantum mechanics allows for illusions. I'll give you another; one which mirrors the idea. Ever heard of the Single Electron Universe Theory?

[Dimi]

See my previous post.

Also, Mr Scientist you might like this link http://www.stefonmears.com/fintach/ChaosDogma.html

[Bored chemist]

"Quantum mechanics allows for illusions. I'll give you another; one which mirrors the idea. Ever heard of the Single Electron Universe Theory?"

Yes, but I have never heard the sugestion that the electron can argue with itself.


There are clearly two "selfs" here- one is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) your idea is right and the other is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) it isn't.
That proves that they are different.
If they are different then they cannot be the same; there must be (at least) two.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

"Quantum mechanics allows for illusions. I'll give you another; one which mirrors the idea. Ever heard of the Single Electron Universe Theory?"

Yes, but I have never heard the sugestion that the electron can argue with itself.


There are clearly two "selfs" here- one is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) your idea is right and the other is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) it isn't.
That proves that they are different.
If they are different then they cannot be the same; there must be (at least) two.

You've never heard of an electron entangling with itself...? In this case, wave mechanics must be obsolete... In the one-electron universe, it goes to show that a single electron can decohere.

[Bored chemist]

Entangling, yes, holding two different ideas in it's "mind" no.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

You've just described what was needed. Thank you.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

And you think the electron cannot argue with itself? You might be surprised to know that electrons have an internal clock.

[Bored chemist]

You've just described what was needed. Thank you.

So, provided that an electron has a mind which can hold two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time then the idea that there is only one consciousness might be correct.

Thanks for sharing that.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

You've just described what was needed. Thank you.

So, provided that an electron has a mind which can hold two mutually exclusive ideas at the
same time then the idea that there is only one consciousness might be correct.

Thanks for sharing that.

Fool.

You ask all the wrong questions. Never mind understand which questions are allowed.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

I have papers which prove you wrong too.

[Madidus_Scientia]

If there's only one consciousness don't you mean papers that prove yourself wrong?

[Bored chemist]

No, they prove him to be both right and wrong at the same time.
Reductio ad adsurdum.
QED

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

If there's only one consciousness don't you mean papers that prove yourself wrong?

No.