Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

Somebody is about to be really embarrased, and it ain't me:

You may recall the Schrödinger's Cat paradox, which was first published in its "scientific form" in 1935 in Zeitschrift der Physick. However in his 1925 essay he recounts an ancient Sankhya Hindu paradox that, jazzed up with some technology, became the cat paradox. In that original form the paradox was cast in the form of two people, one looking at a garden, the other in a dark room. The modern equivalent would be one person looking in the box to see if the cat is alive or dead, while a second person waits out in the hall. As we discussed, in this modern form the state "collapses" for the first person while it does not collapse for the second person.

In 1925 Schrõdinger resolved that paradox the way the Vedantists did: he asserted that all consciousness is one. As he wrote:

"But it is quite easy to express the solution in words, thus: the plurality [of viewpoints] that we perceive is only "an appearance; it is not real. Vedantic philosophy, in which this is a fundamental dogma, has sought to clarify it by a number of analogies, one of the most attractive being the many-faceted crystal which, while showing hundreds of little pictures of what is in reality a single existent object, does not really multiply the object."

Here is another fragment of that essay:

"... you may suddenly come to see, in a flash, the profound rightness of the basic conviction of Vedanta: ... knowledge, feeling and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings."

Finally, Schrödinger himself makes an interesting analogy between Vedantic philosophy and modern physics:

"If finally we look back at that idea of Mach [that `the universe is not twice given'], we shall realize that it comes as near to the orthodox dogma of the Upanishads as it could possibly do without stating it expressis verbis. The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing."

www.upscale.utoronto.ca...

reply to post by Indigo_Child


You are making some great points.

There's no evidence that an objective, material reality exists. This is assumed by many scientist though because they have a strong faith in materialism.

What they will tell you is that we will find a theory one day that will explain how things like consciouness and self-awareness sprang up from dead, dumb matter.

They will say these things just "appear" this way.

For instance, nobody has ever touched matter. When you touch a table, the electrons from your hand and the electrons from the table repel against each other and you perceive this as hardness.

Science is still trying to prove that you are touching something real. Your perception of reality makes it real. They just have a strong, misguided faith in materialism.

Science supports Idealism, many scientist believe in Materialism.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


You never actually touch anything.

Even though things never "touch" as my finger, for example, gets closer to hitting a key the electrostatic repulsion as I get closer causes the surface of my finger to deform.

Electrons in the outer shells of atoms repel each other at 10^-8 metres.(yes, you aren't really sitting on a chair, but hovering/flying slightly above it at 10^-8m.)

All in all everything is one singular being via the product of infinity and infinity at the same time.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Eh, I'm not so sure it's the universe that imposes evolutionary rewards. Since you claimed that there is indeed empirical evidence that it does, I would appreciate you to cite sources for that evidence for my review.

Yes, there is, besides the obvious advantage to various organisms for cooperating rather than competing-- bacterial colonies, multicellular structure, insect collectives, human collectives, etc. etc.

If it's the physical laws at the heart, there is no culprit but "the universe" in reward or punishment. Our brains evolved systems that reward us for giving; benefitting others benefits ourselves. We are part of the whole. Just because a vengeful God is not at the heart of it does not mean it isn't real. The cold, calculated karma-like property is better than an insane, angry diety because you can predict what you'll get sooner or later. Actions, not words are what matter. It is simply a property of existence.

I'll throw down a couple.

Daily Giving Is Seen as a Healthful Treatment

Science Daily was pretty rich with articles on the subject of altruism.
Inner Workings of the Magnanimous Mind
Activation of Brain Region Predicts Altruism
Decision Making: Is It All 'Me, Me, Me'?

I just thought I'd throw this in since it's particularly interesting in relation to The Testament of Solomon where he commands Demons for building the temple:
Selfishness May Be Altruism's Unexpected Ally

Being Altruistic May Make You Sexually Attractive

Special one for you:
Compassion Meditation Changes the Brain

reply to post by EnlightenUp


You can also stop the wheel of kharma and it's benevolent (it is always innocently balancing itself for the greater good) inertia by forgiving. Forgiving not only other-SELVES but yourSELF as well.

Like I said the Universe is an intelligent infinite being experiencing itself in perpetuity.

Your post, being Alturistic and basically service to others. Serving others is serving the One Infinite Creator. Although it's quite the same when serving only yourself, either way if you gain a type of momentum on one of these paths you will ascend, eventually.

Serving other selves is also serving the self and serving the self is serving other selves, it's the passion and emotional characteristics that you place upon the path that you choose that causes it to become a path at all.

Namaste



[edit on 24-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]

Everything
is
conscious~

suppose our knowledge of a conscious universe, or tree for that matter, is going to progress with our knowledge of being conscious humans
we will/are recognize that the energy of consciousness is involved with a greater causitive-unitive source within all creation~



LOVE

reply to post by Psychonaughty


I am reading the Law of One at the moment. I don't quite understand what is meant by serving others. Care to explain? In this life I have been too much of an individual, barely serving anybody. At the same time I have not taken anything from anybody either.

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.

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr


Robert Anton Wilson can explain it way better than I can in his book Quantum Psychology.

-rrr

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I've heard that before how we do not actually touch anything. Amazing really.

Matter and conscousness do not actually, for want of better term, stick to each other. They are not really in contact. I surprise some people when I say that the soul is not actually in the world. The soul is controlling the mind-body in the same way the humans control the avatars in the movie Avatar. It is not actually in the body.

I agree with you on the materialist fundamentalists that have swamped this thread. They don't seem to realise that science no longer supports a material world. The so-called many interpetations of QM is cling onto the material world, when in fact it is slipping away day by day. Well, as it happens with all new scientific paradigms; as soon as the evidence builds up and become too overwhelming to deny anymore, the old paradigm will come crumbling down. It is only a matter of time before new-age science takes over.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Imagine that you reached a higher frequency of thinking by serving yourself with all thoughts 95% towards serving yourself basically serving The Creator. This goes both ways.

Basically the Law of One states that the "harvest" or graduation requires 51% service to otherselves or 95% service to self. It is not the quantity nor the quality of service but it is the passion and the path that you emphasize. I could have been born and never served myself nor anyone else, but if my heart believes that 51% of myself is service to other selves than I would graduate into the 4th density of love and understanding. There is nothing that can force you to do anything you literally decide on the path and the speed that you take that path.

Currently humans would view the service to self path as evil and the service to others path good, but in reallity they are both service to the One Infinite Creator that we all are. All experiences, no matter how benevolent or malicious they seem to be, are equally beautiful in the "eyes" of the One Creator. The whole point of existence is the experience of the infinite vortices/probabilities of the infinity. Basically infinity is "god" experiencing itself, because it is infinite it is absolutley endless. Thus the word eternity.

"In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One."

lawofone.info...

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]

reply to post by GrandKitaro777


Thank you for posting this GK, this is absolutely fascinating stuff!

The scales and distances (relative) involved, are staggering.

On the subject of 'Universal conciousness', i have experimented with this concept twice, and so far i'm two positive results up (the conception and healthy births of my children), for two attempts..make of it what you will, but i want to make it clear, that first thought you just had when reading the line above..i had, too!

I didn't think there was anything to it either. When i first learned of this theory, i pretty much rushed to judgement, which is unfortunately something i tend to do initially..then i tend to examine whatever it is as an observer, from a mental distance.

Long story short is that the universal entity, the essence of everything, listens..or translates and understands the mental vibratory energies that we create when we have thought, ideas, tempers, desires etc and reacts!

This is amazing stuff..mind bogglingly huge numbers, but truly fascinating nonetheless.

S&F for you matey.

reply to post by GrandKitaro777


Oh tell me something i dont know..

I find it hard that people can not see the bloody obviouse..

I mean HELLOOOOO

how on earth can you be consious? without the paramaters to make it happen?

its so amazing to me that people are so stupid. no offence to you people who rely on YOUTUBE and idiots ..

self reflection? hello? what is that? what is symmertry? why have shapes why have pattens why is everything repeating with no end to it but at the same time you die

? ever think that just possibly when your alive you reflect what you are in fact IN

you own mind?

sounds nutts? ok if not you tell me a more logical reason for all the crappy words they put in text books

start here

INFINITY

the universe is alive.. well no effin way !!!

2 apsects one can not escape.

universe has no shape

your mind has no shape

wtf did you think you lived in? static space that was logical?

lol thats retarded at best and ingorant at most

You dont need a phD .. just BRAIN

www.abovetopsecret.com...

enjoy

[edit on 24-12-2009 by 13579]

[edit on 24-12-2009 by 13579]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Somebody is about to be really embarrased, and it ain't me:

Your too dimwitted to even bother with. You consider this a reasonable argument against me correcting your previous erroneous post about Schrodinger?

OK sweetheart, let's think for a change. Here is what I corrected you on.

Are you familiar with the founder of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger?

...

He resolved the Schrodinger's cat problem by introducing consciousness.

There is no embarrassment on my behalf at all. Did you or I discuss any aspect of his opinions on Hinduism? No, no issue there was raised. Those two statements are wrong and demonstrated as being wrong. You then counter argue with a straw man? Your just too cute!

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by donhuangenaro

 

the epic fail of modern materialistic science is its' refusal to take the consciousness into account about life and the universe...

What do you mean? Science does study consciousness.

and the fact is scientists couldn't invent so many theories, or anything, if there was no (self)consciousness in the first place...

Ah, another ATS user who loves to argue correlation proves causation.

why is it so hard to accept this simple fact for so many people?

Because it's a logical fallacy, and most intelligent people try to avoid such things as much as possible.

you would be a mindless zombie without conscious mind...

I propose we are indeed mindless zombies without a conscious mind.

A philosophical zombie, p-zombie or p-zed is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain. While it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain), it does not actually have the experience of pain as a putative 'normal' person does.

source

Although I basically agree with your point of view, i think you are missing an important point: the entire body of science was created by people. Up until about the Copenhagen interpretation took hold almost every scientist would have held a deep notion that the atom was a particle, just like a ball is an object. This interpretation, as we now know, was flawed, and the root cause for its flaw was a failure to acknowledge that all conclusions based upon measurements were in fact the direct result of the measurements. Note that *nobody* ever saw an electron or a photon and yet so many people are convinced that "electrons" EXIST and ARE. when in fact, the only thing we have direct evidence for is that measurements of interactions take place. If a photon "exists" as this little packet of energy traveling just like a ball travels then we necessarily fall into absurdities such as "it is both a wave and a particle" When an answer free from such foolishness is to say that there would appear to be a probability function that dictates when discrete energy interactions take place, that we happen to call "Photons", and that this apparent probability function appears to occupy an extent of spacetime.

The very language of how we describe physics in books and papers carries implied "objectivistic" views, if I can make up that word, as if some person making measurements had concluded something about how the universe is "supposed" to work by extension of those measurements. The measurements may very well have implications on future measurements of the same nature, but nothing beyond that can be assumed. This is one of the reasons why peer review and replication of results are so necessary. Note that these flawed notions make just as much intuitive sense as the particle side of the wave particle duality (unless a scientist has already "accepted" the duality) and the very existence of this duality should be enough to teach us that both interpretations are partially incorrect.

The lesson should have been to always acknowledge that any experimental results are an outcome of the measurements and no further assumption can be made unless this assumption can be tested by another measurement. But you would be surprised how often reading scientific papers one can find such preposterous notions such as trying to imagine what the speed of a particle would have been if its position is known. As if the universe was still made of this clockwork particles that we are just unable to measure but "really are" there.

A tremendously simpler view that is free from paradoxes is a view that only discusses measurements (which unavoidably acknowledge the conscious, because no measurement ever takes place without a conscious observer.)

This is not to say that consciousness is a special magic thing that makes the universe tick, we have no way of testing such a theory. But the scientific community would stand a better chance against such mistakes in the future (which lead to apparent paradoxes) if all "objective" implications that stem from a measurement are clearly labeled as assumptions instead of passed for fact. In a sense, that would be "acknowledging the conscious" in a way that is obviously not always done.

-rrr

reply to post by sirnex


Right let me get the ball moving for you lot.

Logic comes from a patten based on laws,, the laws we follow are inhentry linner.. IE ONE WAY.

Thats why its called logic. "doh" its a way to understand things like shapes and what not.

water does not rain up does it? logicly NO but techincaly it does "you just cant see it"

see?

because logic is a mind set of working out the problem be for you and having a vision in ones mind of how it in fact should work based on the laws we follow.

Mathmatics is LOGICAL why? because WE ARE LOGICAL we was created to ask questions.

ask you say? YES ask.. you know? why is the sky blue? is the sky blue? Well yes and NO

it is only BLUE to some beings to others it may be grey "and in some humans it is grey" colour blindness

so what has that got to do with the universe being "conscious"?

you can not extract US from the universe like we are NOT apart of the very thing that created us in the first place

Are my cells in my body conscious compared to me? NO are they aware of there job? YES

SO does that make them conscious? YES why? because they are doing a job

just like YOU are.. do they have any clue as to why? i guess not

do you have any clue why your alive? im guessing you dont?

so why would the universe NOT be someones mind? or somethings MIND and you just happend to be the result of a question they happend to ask?

you see the very function of asking a question is the key here.. many people mistake it with "the answer"

but why is it that you ASK? how are you ABLE to preform this?

the resason is you are not asking are you? try as you wish to find out the answer you never will..

why?

reply to post by rickyrrr

In a sense, that would be "acknowledging the conscious" in a way that is obviously not always done.

All I can say is that quantum theory alone does not acknowledge consciousness at all. While there are some interpretations that develop from experimentation on quantum theory, these interpretations are not considered facts nor have they been proven as of yet. Most are borderline unscientific due to being unfalsifiable, like MWI. There is no real 'weirdness; to quantum mechanics in the way as proposed by erroneous sensationalized media like the clip posted at the start of this thread. Yes, QM is counter intuitive to an extent, but never has the experiments proven any aspect of consciousness having any direct role in their outcomes.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

You are making some great points.

There's no evidence that an objective, material reality exists. This is assumed by many scientist though because they have a strong faith in materialism.

What they will tell you is that we will find a theory one day that will explain how things like consciouness and self-awareness sprang up from dead, dumb matter.

They will say these things just "appear" this way.

For instance, nobody has ever touched matter. When you touch a table, the electrons from your hand and the electrons from the table repel against each other and you perceive this as hardness.

Science is still trying to prove that you are touching something real. Your perception of reality makes it real. They just have a strong, misguided faith in materialism.

Science supports Idealism, many scientist believe in Materialism.

It's not just scientists. It's everybody, and I'd even include most animals. If anything, I think any scientist who has managed to understand how the wave particle duality came to be accepted and what an absurd view that is, is probably as good as any philosopher.

But quantum physics are just one framework in which this flawed way of thinking becomes obvious and serves as a great example to explore the way we create a map about the world around us in our heads. There are other walks of life besides science that can lead to the same realizations.

-rrr

reply to post by 13579


I'm not going to get into a discussion with you on any aspect of reality. I appreciate your time to attempt to discuss this with me, but the post raises no counter arguments to any of the corrections I have made in the clip and a couple of ATS members statements in regards to QM as utilized by the clip. Your posts are simply too incoherent for me to follow and I just simply do not wish to tool around with your ill thought out arguments. I've tried in other threads, and regardless of pointing out the faults in your arguments, you resort too arrogant pride in belief that you are right irregardless. Something I'm starting to notice from Indigo_Child as well, but at least she is able to write properly and coherently where I can follow what she is trying to convey.

As I've mentioned and asked of you before, I don't know if English is your first language or what country your from, but I simply do not understand your incoherent drivel.

reply to post by sirnex


I hate to disappont you but I am a dude (You assume too much for somebody who accuses of others of unfounded conjecture)

I am awarding you the prize for most ignorant member on ATS. You take ignorance to a whole new level.


Anybody can read the first post on this page and see that Schrodinger does indeed formulate Quantum mechanics based on Hinduism, borrows his famous thought experiment from Hinduism, and resolves the paradox just as it is resolved in Hinduism: by introducing consciousness.

You either cannot read or cannot bring yourself to accept what you read. In either case you are as ignorant as they get.