Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

The universe does not require consciousness, because it IS conscousness. This is what Schrodinger is saying. The entire universe is conscousness, not that it requires conscousness to exist.

He had a problem with the Cophenhagen interpretation because it implied that conscous observers are somehow creating the universe by collapsing the wavefunction. Schrodinger, was instead showing that the universe is not being created by us but it exists because everything is pure consciousness and the so-called observers are part and parcel of this conscousness. Again exactly what Hinduism says.

In other words Schrodinger would have supported the subject of this thread: The universe is ONE ultimate consciousness. Which is pretty much what I've been saying as well.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by sirnex


Nah Sirnex I am not going to provide you sources, you are going to have to get into the habit of thinking for yourself. You are totally dependent on what some scientific article says. I can't be arsed with someone who cannot think for themselves.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by sirnex

 

Nah Sirnex I am not going to provide you sources, you are going to have to get into the habit of thinking for yourself. You are totally dependent on what some scientific article says. I can't be arsed with someone who cannot think for themselves.

Oh wow, you are a total hypocrite. I'm dependent upon the science but you erroneously use the same science in attempt to "prove" your assertion is valid, but then refuse to cite any additional sources to back up your claims. Whereas I am continuously refuting your claims of the science by explicitly quoting the science itself. Your a complete (Snip)

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 24-12-2009 by asala]

reply to post by constantwonder


Schrodinger says we do not belong to this material world. In another quote that you posted, he said this material world was constructed AT THE PRICE of our separating our minds from it.

This material world is in existence because of the way that we perceive it to be.

He also said that we are only in this world because our bodies are. Once again alluding to the idea that we separated our minds from it. We view it from the outside. but what if we were to realize the two were not separate?

Would this change the nature of the material world?

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Bingo! You've hit the nail on the head.

Another scientists that think the universe is conscious:

Albert Einstein

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

reply to post by sirnex


Sigh, you really are the most ignorant person I have conversed with on ATS. I have said upteem times now, that I do not really care about physics all that much and I do not appeal to it. I am doing philosophy, my arguments are based on reasoning and thus do not require any citations. Sorry but only a rational person can follow a philosophical argument, and you clearly are not rational. You can't even think for yourself. In fact you've probably never had to think for yourself. Pitable to be honest.

I am not at all appealing to QM to prove the universe is consciousness. Do you get it, or will I have to repeat it again. I may occasionally use examples in QM, but only to support arguments. I do now like youself depend upon every word some scientist says, even if it is Schrodinger.

As for flux in the virtual field, look at this:

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. The term "zero-point field" is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space"[1], and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

en.wikipedia.org...

These are sometimes referred to as virtual particles, although that is a misnomer, as we do not actually know if they are particles, waves or something else. I use the term flux. They fluctuate in and out of "existence" Now, what are they when they are outside of existence? They are certainly not matter. Their effects can be physically measured, such as by the casmir effect so we know this flux exists.

QM and classical physics are not reconcilable. The laws of classical physics collapse at the quantum level. Classical physics deals with the macroscopic world of real solid entities where matter exhibits predictable behaviour. In the microscopic world, the world does not behave in the same way. It behaves in a "strange" way. Particles popping in and out of existence for one thing. 99.99% of matter is empty space and consists of electrons whirling around in electron clouds around a nucleus. How does this appear as the material and real world that we inhabit is the greatest contradiction in physics. And this contradiction is unresolved.

We have one description for the microscopic world and one description for the macroscopic world. They contradict one another.

By the way can't you make a point a without being hostile, rude and abusive or does it hurt your brain not to?

reply to post by 13579


I'm sorry 13579, but you sound like a negative entity spreading doom and gloom. You are a citizen of eternity.

"This is why we iterate quite often, when asked for specific information, that it pales to insignificance, just as the grass withers and dies while the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator redounds to the very infinite realms of creation forever and ever, creating and creating itself in perpetuity.

Why then be concerned with the grass that blooms, withers and dies in its season only to grow once again due to the infinite love and light of the One Creator? This is the message we bring. Each entity is only superficially that which blooms and dies. In the deeper sense there is no end to being-ness."

It's the love that keeps us existent indefinitley.

When you fall deep asleep you forget that you were existent before the dream that you experience that is why the dream is so effective. This is EXACTLY what your incarnation is. Your simply in a slumber.

Now back to the thread topic I wrote on a previous page this exact post:

All is one being, all is the One Infinite Creator experiencing and learning of it's infinite self.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define the infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.


Each creation is another beat of the great central sun (our sun is a sub-sub-sub-sub etc.. version of the great central sun) with new infinite probabilities. Each creation is a break up of unity and eventually unity again, this process continues as an indefinite heart beat. It merely is one beat of the heart of this intelligence from creation to creation.

The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity (Of the original thought or Infinite Creator). As each exploration began (For a galaxy), it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light or light/love into what we might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.

Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational patterns of what we would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has its own, shall I say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Interesting reads would include:

llresearch.org...

From:

llresearch.org...


Namaste


[edit on 24-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

I have said upteem times now, that I do not really care about physics all that much and I do not appeal to it. I am doing philosophy, my arguments are based on reasoning and thus do not require any citations.

One does not applaud erroneous claims of physics and label it philosophy. I've shown why the clip is wrong and I've shown how your statements of the science is wrong. This is not philosophy, I have not argued against the philosophy aspect of it. You made erroneous claims, I proved you wrong. Quit being arrogant.

Sorry but only a rational person can follow a philosophical argument, and you clearly are not rational. You can't even think for yourself. In fact you've probably never had to think for yourself. Pitable to be honest.

Hey, let's do me an immense favor and place that straw man back up that good old stink hole huh? I corrected your claims on the sciences, not on the philosophies. Yet you say I don't think and then give me this BS response?

I may occasionally use examples in QM, but only to support arguments.

And yet when shown through explicit quotes from the sciences itself, you refuse to concede to the fact that your statements in regards to what the sciences say are inherently wrong and misguided. Nothing you've quoted or applauded support your opinions.

As for flux in the virtual field, look at this:

This is an aspect of the VACUUM, not of ATOMS or MATTER.

OK, let's try to delve into this a little. Virtual particles arise from the vacuum which is not truly empty space, but a seething froth of virtual particles. Virtual particles are separate from real particles in that they exist temporarily whereas real particles persist. There is no real distinction between the two forms of particles other than one exists temporarily and the other persists rather than fluxes back into the quantum vacuum.

There is not a definite line differentiating virtual particles from real particles — the equations of physics just describe particles (which includes both equally). The amplitude that a virtual particle exists interferes with the amplitude for its non-existence; whereas for a real particle the cases of existence and non-existence cease to be coherent with each other and do not interfere any more. In the quantum field theory view, "real particles" are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying quantum fields. As such, virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are detectable only as forces but not particles.

source

QM and classical physics are not reconcilable. The laws of classical physics collapse at the quantum level. Classical physics deals with the macroscopic world of real solid entities where matter exhibits predictable behaviour. In the microscopic world, the world does not behave in the same way. It behaves in a "strange" way. Particles popping in and out of existence for one thing. 99.99% of matter is empty space and consists of electrons whirling around in electron clouds around a nucleus. How does this appear as the material and real world that we inhabit is the greatest contradiction in physics. And this contradiction is unresolved.

Sounds like the formation of a gap argument to me. Are you attempting to claim future knowledge here?

We have one description for the microscopic world and one description for the macroscopic world. They contradict one another.

They really don't contradict each other at all. One description describes the behavior of macroscopic objects whilst the other describes microscopic objects. Why the microscopic behaves differently than the macroscopic is the big unknown right now, but the blind conjecture that this invariably must mean consciousness has something to do with it is utterly unfounded BS. The science says nothing of this as I've demonstrated.

By the way can't you make a point a without being hostile, rude and abusive or does it hurt your brain not to?

It hurts my brain to not call an idiot an idiot. Just as equally as it would hurt my brain to applaud erroneous information and delve into the world of idiocy. Fortunately for you, you are immune to this effect. I could only wish that I could openly applaud wrongly claimed information in light of evidence that the information is wrong.

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by rickyrrr

 

It is only incompleat if you leave out the person observing..

The "unified field theory" is in deed correct as i show on an ATS thread i made..

The higgs boson is US.. why? well how the eff do we make a calculation if we are not here? were is that factord into math other than in QP?


They fail to grasp the most basic part of math.. WE DO THE MATH not MATH some TOOL to count apples

1+1 = 2 . this is applied math.
1+1 = 3 . this is YOU doing math

why 3? because that is the you and the Outcome.

cant do 1+1 if im not here can i?

If I get what you are saying (and I am not sure I do) we cannot leave the observer out of any math or science. That is pretty much my point. as soon as we imagine the sound the tree makes in the forest without a person to be there and hear it we step into shaky ground and that's where our statements and "made up stuff" start to cross paths. But as soon as we say "you create your own universe with your mind" we are also stepping onto shaky ground. clearly if I could create my own universe I would be driving a Ferrari with a hot blonde right now. And since those things are not true, i am pretty sure that there are some aspects of the universe that I don't create with my mind or consciousness. I just want to make sure that is clear.

So basically yes, math itself is, in spite of all appearance to the contrary, a human construct and there is always a person there involved. When people start talking about math "existing" without people or attributes of matter or energy "existing" in spite of not having been measured, we are clearly making stuff up.

I think that without a doubt we all have a strong conviction that "something" is out there, some objective universe we'd like to believe in and we'd like to have properties we can count on. and we've done a pretty good job at that, until we got to the smallest bits, and realized that the fundamental bits that make what we were sure "is matter" were not necessarily what we thought, in fact all matter may be fundamentally more than "convertible" to energy but actually frozen energy. But then again, what really IS energy? We know what we can do with energy and we know how we can measure energy, but to *really know* what energy is.... hmm... to have access to the "objective universal reality" that is only possible by acquiring bits of perception and only in a gradual process, that so far doesn't seem to be nearly over.


Even if the day came when we thought we really knew it all, there could be unknowable aspects of the universe we haven't accessed because the conditions required to test them have never been imagined. We will always be limited by that, in the end, by our own minds.

-rrr

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

It hurts my brain to not call an idiot an idiot. Just as equally as it would hurt my brain to applaud erroneous information and delve into the world of idiocy. Fortunately for you, you are immune to this effect. I could only wish that I could openly applaud wrongly claimed information in light of evidence that the information is wrong.

You can call people idiots all you want (which you often do) but that doesn't make you any more right than anyone else.

Some scientists assert that the universe is not conscious, some do. Neither has any proof that suggests otherwise, so even you trying to assert one side is just as erroneous as us applauding information that we tend to agree with.

You seem to be very well at citing other scientific studies you tend to agree with and you SEEM to have studied them well (unless you're just regurgitating information). Has it ever occured to you to try to study up on the works of scientists from the other side of the aisle. If anything it will give you a chance to honestly say that you think it's all bunk without just doing so because you believe otherwise.

This IS a new field of study and you can't just dismiss it as bunk and as being part of the world of idiocy just because you have a different opinion of how the world works.

reply to post by sirnex


Well, I think we can establish you cannot do philosophy. So lets put that put that point to rest now.

I find it interesting how you keep alleging that I am applauding the clip. I am not actually, I am arguing for the thesis of this thread: a conscious universe. Apparently you have a habit of joining these threads and ranting like a rabid materialist fundamentalist. I suggest you come to terms with the fact that threads like this will have idealists like me who are prepared to defend their positions. Rather than ranting like a religious fundamentalist, try arguing with us rationally and sensibly.

Secondly, there is a fundamental contradiction between classical physics and quantum physics, hence why there has been a major controversy in physics the last century. The first contradiction you have said yourself:

Matter behaves differently at the microscopic level

It indeed does and various experiments in QM has demonstrated this, the most vital of which is the double slit experiment demonstrating the dual nature of light as both a particle and wave. There is something called "spooky action" which is predicated by QM which violates relativity. There is something called uncertainity which governs the QM domain. Then there is the quantum vacuum flucutations violating the notion that empty space is empty.

There are many, challenges shall we say, that Quantum mechanics hurls at classical physics and its models of reality. Most notable is the fact that according to QM most matter is empty space and particles are randomly popping in and out of existence from seemingly empty space(It is no longer understood to be empty, I know) How does this then become the macroscopic world of solid objects is an unresolved problem of QM.

Beyond that I do not care about QM and have no interest in studying it. I have no interest in dubious scientific theories. I know why matter appears sold, it appears solid because of the observer. Similar to how interference patterns in a hologram only show form when a beam of light is shone on it.
The world only appears to us a cetain way because of how we observe it. It does not appear to the same to all observers. Do you know what it is like to be a bat?

Sorry I am doing philosophy again. I forgot your intellect can't actually handle it.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Oh my i leave for a while and decorum falls apart. . . mudslinging is pointless everyone. . . lets debate based on evidence not personal feelings about one another.

It's still my assertion that the univese is seperate from concsiousness. Consciousness is of the universe but nor required by it. It gave rise to concsiousness. Its the philosophy I subscribe to. Its called Anthropic reasoning.

The idea behind it is that the universe does exsist without consciousness. But without concsiousness it has no meaning. We give perceptual meaning to the universe we inhabit.

Stars are according to some nuclear reactions or to others nodes in an electrical system, thats what physics and mathematics say about them. People on the other hand give them perceptual meaning, like sustainer of life, symbol of art, religious icon etc etc

The only link between the metaphysical mind and the material world is perception.

There is something called uncertainity which governs the QM domain. Then there is the quantum vacuum flucutations violating the notion that empty space is empty.

Uncertainty only means quantum mechanics cannot give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a variety of possible results.

This is not a characteristic of the system but a weakness in the theory. Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Einstein, Born all knew this.




[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]

reply to post by constantwonder


I don't mind debates where each party can argue their position rationally and sensibly. There really should be no place for personal attacks, mudsligning and other rheotric in a rational debate. I do not at all mind encountering views that oppose mine, in fact the more criticism the better. Philosophy is a dialectal exercise. So on that note I am going to raise some challenges to your reasoning that the universe gave rise to conscousness.

1. How? How is it possible for anything within a physical system to give rise to the complete opposite phenomenon - conscious experience.

2. If conscousness was something that arose from the universe, then surely conscousness was potential within the universe. Otherwise you are claiming that something comes from nothing. It would be like claiming a barren woman can bear a child. The effect must issue from the cause and be potential in the cause, just as the apple is potential with the apple seed.

3. If the universe can exist without consciousness, what does it look like when you are not conscious of it?

I am interested in your answers to these questions.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Most notable is the fact that according to QM most matter is empty space and particles are randomly popping in and out of existence from seemingly empty space(It is no longer understood to be empty, I know) How does this then become the macroscopic world of solid objects is an unresolved problem of QM.

Virtual particles in the vacuum are formed when an wave of potential future energy condenses into a particle and then annhilates with its opposite particle releasing the energy borrowed from the future "pool" at the exact time it was borrowed from. These distortions at higher densities become matter.

Matter is nothing more than twisted up space time. It's loop quantum gravity the more complex the loops in space time the more variances you get in the particles formed.

This is why we get heavy elements from high density high temperature stars, it takes more energy and pressure to create heavy particles.

All matter we see now came into being as the quark-gluon plasma formed shortly after whatever banged cooled down enough to allow atomic nuclei to form and be stable. Since the pressure by this time had subsided there wasn't enough to form heavy elements. Heavy element formation began after stars began to form.

It all started as a soup of quanta or sub-atomic particles. The forces of nature made them what they are today

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by constantwonder

 

I don't mind debates where each party can argue their position rationally and sensibly. There really should be no place for personal attacks, mudsligning and other rheotric in a rational debate. I do not at all mind encountering views that oppose mine, in fact the more criticism the better. Philosophy is a dialectal exercise. So on that note I am going to raise some challenges to your reasoning that the universe gave rise to conscousness.

1. How? How is it possible for anything within a physical system to give rise to the complete opposite phenomenon - conscious experience.

2. If conscousness was something that arose from the universe, then surely conscousness was potential within the universe. Otherwise you are claiming that something comes from nothing. It would be like claiming a barren woman can bear a child. The effect must issue from the cause and be potential in the cause, just as the apple is potential with the apple seed.

3. If the universe can exist without consciousness, what does it look like when you are not conscious of it?

I am interested in your answers to these questions.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

#1 Simple rules given time give rise to vast complexity



#2 Of course there was the potential for consciousness. Thats exactly what you would use QM to determine. The probability of any given outcome is exactly what QM is for.

#3 It doesn't matter. We give it its meaning. This is why I subscribe to anthropic reasoning.

What my philosophy is is that things exsist and go on about their way with or without me. But without me to measure it, judge it, observe it, appreciate it, it doesn't have any meaning. This doesn't mean however that it doesn't exsist, it just exsists without any human assigned labels for its attributes

Originally posted by nunya13

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

It hurts my brain to not call an idiot an idiot. Just as equally as it would hurt my brain to applaud erroneous information and delve into the world of idiocy. Fortunately for you, you are immune to this effect. I could only wish that I could openly applaud wrongly claimed information in light of evidence that the information is wrong.

You can call people idiots all you want (which you often do) but that doesn't make you any more right than anyone else.

Some scientists assert that the universe is not conscious, some do. Neither has any proof that suggests otherwise, so even you trying to assert one side is just as erroneous as us applauding information that we tend to agree with.

You seem to be very well at citing other scientific studies you tend to agree with and you SEEM to have studied them well (unless you're just regurgitating information). Has it ever occured to you to try to study up on the works of scientists from the other side of the aisle. If anything it will give you a chance to honestly say that you think it's all bunk without just doing so because you believe otherwise.

This IS a new field of study and you can't just dismiss it as bunk and as being part of the world of idiocy just because you have a different opinion of how the world works.

I think this whole debate about whether the universe is conscious is like saying that the universe is square, for, if it wasn't how could square objects be contained in it?

Consciousness is not well defined, but if anything, it is an attribute of people, and maybe animals (in my opinion it is a property of animals) consciousness is correlated with brain activity and any other attributes that consciousness might have besides the brain only exist subjectively and if they have some realm where they exist this realm is not accessible for verification.

The universe, not being a person, cannot possibly have the same kind of consciousness as we have. if it did, we wouldn't be talking about it, it would interrupt us.

But then again, we are part of the universe and we are having these discussions. Could it be that we are the mouthpieces of the universe, or the braincells of the universe? maybe.

Surely social collectives have properties that individuals don't have, and that would be consistent with the view that memes or philosophies or ideologies take a life of their own. But to say that the universe is conscious in a way that is independent of people in it is essentially the same debate as to whether there is a god. And for that matter just as debatable as to whether all of reality exists outside of ME. remember solipsism?

so it quickly becomes a very pointless discussion in my opinion to go down that road because there isn't much to be verified.

A tell tale sign is when metaphors exceed factual data by a large factor, then we are getting into territory of ideology, where all we can do is agree to disagree.


-rrr

just thought id post the entire video from which my last post was taken its truely interesting in my opinion.

Google Video Link

#1 Simple rules given time give rise to vast complexity

I loved how the scientist dismissively says "and simple rules would give rise to life" He doesn't really know that. You see there is a problem with the theory of random chance convergences forming complex matter and then aggregating to form living organisms and complex organisms. It is unfalsifiable. It is based on an infinite time deferal fallacy. If you give evolution enough time it will eventually form complex matter, then simple life forms, than complex life forms. Similar to the fallacy that if you have infinite monkeys on infinite type writer typing for infinite time they one would eventually compose the complete works of Shakespeare.

In actuality if you have have random chance convergences either you will set of a chain of aggregation that will aggregate indefinitely or it will aggregate and then destroy itself. Such a process would produce nothing more than chaos. Indeed, If I sit down at a typewriter for an entire day and type blindly it produces nothing more than chaos. I have no reason to believe that if I sat there for infinity typing away it would produce anything other than chaos.

In absence of a rational explanation for why this aggregation process would produce complex living organisms this explanation is unfalsfiable and thus useless.

Secondly, I think you missed the deeper point of my question. I asked how could the opposite phenomenon of conscious experience arise out of a physical system - physical aggregation. How does a physical aggregation lead to the emergence of a non-physical aggregate? This is logically impossible because physical matter is quantitative, whereas conscious experience is qualitative. They are complete opposites.

It would be like putting pieces of glass in a large shaker, shaking it, and ending up with wood. It is impossible.

#2 Of course there was the potential for consciousness. Thats exactly what you would use QM to determine. The probability of any given outcome is exactly what QM is for.

Now, this is interesting. It means therefore there is a potential reality in the universe where all possibilities exist. In this potential reality consciousness already exists. If this was not true, then QM could not determine something that is not possible.

#3 It doesn't matter. We give it its meaning. This is why I subscribe to anthropic reasoning.

What my philosophy is is that things exsist and go on about their way with or without me. But without me to measure it, judge it, observe it, appreciate it, it doesn't have any meaning. This doesn't mean however that it doesn't exsist, it just exsists without any human assigned labels for its attributes

Well there is a major problem here. You are asserting that something exists even if you are not conscious of it and cannot know it. This would be like me asserting that an invisible dragon exists even though I am not conscious of it and cannot know it.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Indeed, If I sit down at a typewriter for an entire day and type blindly it produces nothing more than chaos. I have no reason to believe that if I sat there for infinitety it would produce anything other than chaos

Indeed blindly typing would produce chaos. However if yo impose a few rules say you can only hit vowels and a few common consonants and you can't hit the same key repeatedly , you will find i'm sure many words. maybe not classical english lit but words.

Then if you take and make each key a word because the system evolves then you pund away and you get some phrases out of the "chaos".

Secondly, I think you missed the deeper point of my question. I asked how could the opposite phenomenon of conscious experience arise out of a physical system - physical aggregation. How does a physical aggregation lead to the emergence of a non-physical aggregate? This is logically impossible because physical matter is quantitative, whereas conscious experience is qualitative. They are complete opposites.

Concsious experience is a physical experience. Your perspective gives it its personal meaning and beauty your emotions color your physical experiences. Electrical impulses are a physical phenomenon. Your experiences are a blend of these physical events colored by your emotions and feelings.

Now, this is interesting. It means therefore there is a potential reality in the universe where all possibilities exist. In this potential reality consciousness already exists. If this was not true, then QM could not determine something that is not possible.

This does not mean there is a potential for anything you can imagine. Only things that are allowed by the laws of physics are possible. Some things just lie outside the realm of physical possibility.

Well there is a major problem here. You are asserting that something exists even if you are not conscious of it and cannot know it. This would be like me asserting that an invisible dragon exists even though I am not conscious of it and cannot know it

The world was round before we knew it was round. The earth orbited the sun before we knew it. We thought we were the only galaxy before we knew there were more.

Are you telling me the earth was flat before we knew it? Are you saying that the earth was the center of the universe and everything orbited it until we discovered otherwise? Do you believe that the rest of the universe didn't exsist until we built telescopes that could see beyond our galaxy?



[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]

[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]