reply to post by GrandKitaro777
The only way in which consciousness affects the universe is that all of our understanding about the universe is done using our consciousness, and our
consciousness has flaws. The biggest flaw is the illusion that by doing measurements we understand the universe. A better notion is that by doing
measurements we create our own notion of the universe inside our heads that we then write and communicate to others. But it should always be
maintained that *this* notion of the universe IS NOT the universe.
It is a mistake to think that we "change" the universe by observing it. It is the same mistake that led to the whole confusion in the first place. I
am not saying that we "don't change" the universe by observing it either, that is how weird it is. To say that we "change" the universe requires
that we believe there is a way that the universe "IS". And as strong as this illusion seems, the only thing that "IS" is the idea of the universe
inside our heads.
The error that leads to this confusion is that science, and humans in their thinking have in their minds the notion of "IS". Since the macroscopic
world gives us some solid sense of "permanence" we believe that things just "Are" a certain way. We believe that when we look at a ball, we are
looking at a ball, but instead we are experiencing a projection of something ahead of us inside our brains. Our experience of the ball is the
projection inside our heads. We can never actually *see* the ball. If we could "See" the ball in all of its glory, then we would not be limited to
perceiving its outside front surface. And this notion is extended to a deeply held belief that things "are" a certain way even when they are not
under observation or under interactions, when in fact the only thing we trully know is the measurements or observations we make of things.
All the Quantom Weirdness is better thought of as the story of how our flawed ways of thinking led to contradictions in books.
Here is a less assumptious way of looking at the universe: Instead of thinking that things "ARE" like this or like that, suppose we always say "We
Measured" the atom at position such and such at time such and such as MEASURED by this clock.
If we don't take for granted any results of the measurements an interesting consequence follows:
The only things that "ARE" are the interactions between things. And because ultimately we have no way of knowing about those interactions without,
being there and conscious, and without the use of instruments, there is *NOTHING* that can be said about what happens when we are not looking, other
than the fact that there is a tremendously high probability that future measurements will give results that are consistent with a notion of
"permanence" that we have learned about.
Now, when this is twisted into the idea that "we make our own universe" I see an unfair mixture of notions. We don't "Make" the universe by
looking at it. We MAKE our UNDERSTANDING of the universe by looking at it. What the universe "IS" or ISN"T should not be assumed because assuming
it will invariably lead to same the sorts of contradictions that make the measurement problem seem like a paradox.
But from the perspective of psychology there is another sense in which we make our own lives, and I can, from personal experience, say that it is very
much true. Put in a very simplistic way, if we think positive, then we find the positive in the things that happen around us, and vice versa. The only
connection between this notion and the various scientific interpretations about the universe is that both occur, just like everything we experience,
inside our heads.
Here is another kicker:
Did you know that you will never be aware of your "real" head? Your head contains your brain, and yet, your perceptions about your head are all
projected inside your brain, along with your perceptions of the entire universe. Your notion of your head is not your "real" head. if it was, then
we would have to wonder how your notion of your head can physically be contain into its own volume. and that clearly couldn't be could it? As you
think about the notion of your head inside your head, this notion itself is inside your real head. and this process can potentially be imagined at
infinity. Yet your "real" head is something that you cannot even begin to have conclusive evidence of having, other than the fact that you are
alive. and even that could be a dream.