Consciousness is a Quantum Entity

The problem with science is that it starts with a materialistic assumption. This assumption is not based on anything but their personal belief system but sadly it's the rule in much of science.

So every immaterial aspect of our reality is just a byproduct of matter. So things like consciousness, information, non locality all stem from the material. To many people this is just an absolute truth because it's something they believe in. They can never ask the question, did the immaterial aspects of our universe give rise to the material. This is a point that's just as valid as their materialist assumption but if you just ask the questiion and take an idealist point of view then you're just listening tp pseudoscience.

This is truly a sad state of affairs because there's no basis to make the assumption that everything has to emerge from the material. The evidence actually points to the contrary.

For instance, we know matter breaks down at Plancks Constant. Well, information doesn't. It just goes from Classical bits to qubits. So if there's no evidence that the material exists beyond Plancks Constant but there's evidence that the immaterial still exists, how can we assume that the immaterial aspects of reality emerged from the material?

This is how they came up with Parallel Universes. In order to explain the fine tuning of the universe and things like Superposition, they said there has to be a material universe for every probable state of matter. Again, this is just another way to push materialism without a shred of evidence.

You can easily say that superposition and probability inherent in quantum mechanics is evidence of the Conscious Universe instead of a bunch of material universes. These universes could just be informational constructs of the conscious mind of the universe.

We operate in the same manner as the Consciousness of the universe. Our Conscious and Unconscious decisions are governed by probability. Take the simplest thing. Where will you go to lunch? Burger King, Taco Bell or Subway? This is just Classical Consciousness doing the same thing as Quantum Consciousness just like a Classical bit and a qubit.

So there's more evidence that the immaterial exists on a quantum level and there's ZERO evidence that the material exists on a quantum level yet people still start with the assumption that everything had to emerge from the material.

wow they are doing anything to prove QM...last week i heard that SMELL was evidence of QM.

if conciousness IS quantum...then quantum isnt consiousness....think about it

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I think you have made a very important and thought-provoking thread. I used to believe it all came from the Material, but now I am not so sure. The Immaterial creating all is possible.

I like to think that there is a swirling mass of infinitude, and through complete chance evolves forms and structure, and as soon as structure exists, it has a permanance that gives rise to a sense of consciousness as soon as it is able to exist as its own separate entity.

Humans probably have a consciousness within thier consciousness, (aka the mind) which is why so many mystics attempt to break their mind so they can perceive the world through thier true self.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

The problem with science is that it starts with a materialistic assumption. This assumption is not based on anything but their personal belief system but sadly it's the rule in much of science.

And the idealistic view is not an assumption at all?

So every immaterial aspect of our reality is just a byproduct of matter. So things like consciousness, information, non locality all stem from the material. To many people this is just an absolute truth because it's something they believe in.

Or perhaps because there is evidence for it.

They can never ask the question, did the immaterial aspects of our universe give rise to the material. This is a point that's just as valid as their materialist assumption but if you just ask the questiion and take an idealist point of view then you're just listening tp pseudoscience.

There are many in the scientific community who do ask this, do research this and do attempt to prove this. The issue here is, they fail to prove it.

This is truly a sad state of affairs because there's no basis to make the assumption that everything has to emerge from the material. The evidence actually points to the contrary.

The evidence most certainly does not point to the contrary. I know from previous dealings that you enjoy twisting quantum mechanics to fit your personal assumptions of reality. Quantum mechanics in fact deals with very real materialistic particles. It just shows us that those subatomic particles behave quiet different than humans and planets do. You take this lack of understanding on that aspect of quantum mechanics and assume it implies reality doesn't exist as a material world.

For instance, we know matter breaks down at Plancks Constant. Well, information doesn't. It just goes from Classical bits to qubits. So if there's no evidence that the material exists beyond Plancks Constant but there's evidence that the immaterial still exists, how can we assume that the immaterial aspects of reality emerged from the material?

The only thing that breaks down at the plank level is time itself. Matter still exists, but how it FUNCTIONS at that level is entirely different than how it functions at the macroscopic level, like in a solar system. Information is only an abstract thing. Thing's don't inherently hold information unless there is something there that can make conscious use of information. Objects have physical properties. You have the problem of confusing physical properties with information.

This is how they came up with Parallel Universes. In order to explain the fine tuning of the universe and things like Superposition, they said there has to be a material universe for every probable state of matter. Again, this is just another way to push materialism without a shred of evidence.

I swear I remember a thread you authored a while back ago where you had no previous issues with this notion. In fact, I distinctly remember arguing with you over this due to it being developed from black hole thermodynamics and ME having an issue with parallel universes. What's changed since then?

You can easily say that superposition and probability inherent in quantum mechanics is evidence of the Conscious Universe instead of a bunch of material universes. These universes could just be informational constructs of the conscious mind of the universe.

Your language in this quote implies assumption. Why would you attack one assumption implying that willy nilly assuming things is bad and then replace it with one of your own?

We operate in the same manner as the Consciousness of the universe. Our Conscious and Unconscious decisions are governed by probability. Take the simplest thing. Where will you go to lunch? Burger King, Taco Bell or Subway? This is just Classical Consciousness doing the same thing as Quantum Consciousness just like a Classical bit and a qubit.

Actually, the brain works more like a computer with logic circuits in decision making processes.

So there's more evidence that the immaterial exists on a quantum level and there's ZERO evidence that the material exists on a quantum level yet people still start with the assumption that everything had to emerge from the material.

Your misrepresentation of quantum mechanics is hardly evidence of your assumption that reality is idealistic. You are just doing the same thing the movie what the bleep do we know did. Misrepresent the sciences to push their own views of reality and claim that the science backs them up.

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7).



The name of God used here is “Jehovah Elohim,” which identifies Him as the self-existent God who is also the powerful Creator. The Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ was the actual Creator.



· “All things were made by Him” (John 1:3)

· “For by Him were all things created” (Col. 1:16)

· “By whom he made the worlds” (Heb. 1:2)



God “formed” man. The Hebrew word formed is “yatzar.” It means to form or to shape from something, in contrast to “bara,” to create from nothing (Gen. 1:1).

The conscience is often surrounded by mystery. Some actually view the conscience of man as esoteric and incapable of being understood. Alas, the occult has claimed special insight regarding the conscience. Many have subscribed to the philosophy of "let your conscience be your guide." Some place their conscience over the revealed will of God, the Bible. Concerned reader, the conscience is a biblical subject: "And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day" (Acts 23: 1, more later).

Our English word conscience is defined as, "The sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action" . "Conscience" is derived from the Greek word suneidesis. Suneidesis is made up of two words: sun, meaning with, and oida, to know. Hence, a co-knowledge. Vine comments thus on suneidesis:

"literally, 'a knowing with' (sun, 'with,' oida, 'to know'), i.e., 'a co-knowledge (with oneself), the witness borne to one's conduct by conscience, that faculty by which we apprehend the will of God, as that which is designed to govern our lives;' hence (a) the sense of guiltness before God; Heb. 10:2; (b) that process of thought which distinguishes what it considers morally good or bad, commending the good, condemning the bad, and so prompting to do the former, and avoid the latter; Rom. 2:15 (bearing witness with God's law); Heb. 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; acting in a certain way because 'conscience' requires it, Rom. 13:5;

reply to post by Faith2011

Our English word conscience is defined as, "The sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action" . "Conscience" is derived from the Greek word suneidesis. Suneidesis is made up of two words: sun, meaning with, and oida, to know. Hence, a co-knowledge. Vine comments thus on suneidesis:

He's not talking about conscience, he's talking about consciousness. The human mind.

reply to post by sirnex


I see your posts are still full of hyperbole without any substance at all. If you have something more than your opinion let's hear it. You basically said nothing in your response except nmaterialism is correct and I'm twisting Quantum Mechanics as if people are just supposed to take your word for it in a vacuum without a shred of evidence. You embaress yourself constantly with posts that lack any substance.

You said:

The only thing that breaks down at the plank level is time itself. Matter still exists, but how it FUNCTIONS at that level is entirely different than how it functions at the macroscopic level, like in a solar system. Information is only an abstract thing. Thing's don't inherently hold information unless there is something there that can make conscious use of information. Objects have physical properties. You have the problem of confusing physical properties with information.

This one quote represents your whole post. It's full of nothing but hyperbole and these statements of fact without a shred of evidence.

You said Matter still exists, where is the evidence for this nonsense. Space, Time, the laws of physics as we know them break down at Plancks Constant, so where is there one shred of evidence that matter still exists? How does it function at that level? Again, where is the peer reviewed paper that gives us observed evidence that matter still functions and exists at Plancks Constant?

Also, you don't understand information or information theory and this is very evident. Because this entire posts is just Gobbledy Gook. You said things don't inherently hold information, what?? You have to be joking, of course they do. Information doesn't just disappear LOL. Where does the information go?

Again, there ZERO evidence that supports materialism. Not one shred. Space, time, matter, the laws of physics as we know them all break down at Plancks Constant, so to say they matter still exists at this level is just pie in the sky wishful thinking with ZERO evidence to support this notion.

Information about these things could be stored in qubits. This makes more sense than saying the material still exists just because you want to believe it without any evidence. We know qubits still exist at this level but not matter as we know it in any form.

People want to know what is God, and what is God consciousness. The reality is that consciousness IS God. Consciousness is totally singular, as is God. They are two names for one thing. The illusion is that there is an individual separate from God or separate from consciousness. The 'individual' seeks to know God or to be in God consciousness. But first one must understand what that individual is.

The 'individual' says "I am this or that". There is an assumption that they are limited, that the consciousness of 'I am' is limited. But when 'I am' is not equated with this or that, when it remains simply as consciousness, as awareness, it has no boundary. This is the consciousness which is 'God'. In the Bible, God says, "I am that I Am". Not that God is this or that, but consciousness itself. The best example that can be given is that of the ocean and the wave. A wave is nothing but the ocean. A wave has no individuality of it's own. It is in fact only the ocean taking the form of a wave, pushing up as a wave. If the wave believes it is separate from the ocean, it may wish to reunite with the ocean. But water is water. There is not a boundary where the wave ends and the ocean begins. It is only the form which arises that suggests waveness different from the ocean.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

We operate in the same manner as the Consciousness of the universe. Our Conscious and Unconscious decisions are governed by probability. Take the simplest thing. Where will you go to lunch? Burger King, Taco Bell or Subway? This is just Classical Consciousness doing the same thing as Quantum Consciousness just like a Classical bit and a qubit.

Actually, the brain works more like a computer with logic circuits in decision making processes.

No, the brain does not. There is a reason that computer scientist are struggling to make AI. It is because what the human mind can really do is beyond what we can really comprehend right now.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You basically said nothing in your response except nmaterialism is correct and I'm twisting Quantum Mechanics as if people are just supposed to take your word for it in a vacuum without a shred of evidence.

You accuse me of the same manner of posting as you've conducted in your OP. Still just as hypocritical as ever I see!

This one quote represents your whole post. It's full of nothing but hyperbole and these statements of fact without a shred of evidence.

Here is the wiki link on physics at the plank scale.

No experiment current or planned will allow the precise probing or complete understanding of the Planck scale.

In other words, neither you nor I can factually state that reality breaks down completely at this level. It has not been proven, there is no evidence, there have been no experiments conducted that can explore this precise level of reality. You claim there is evidence and yet, scientists claim they have no clue and nothing that can even probe that level. Either your lying or the scientists are.

You said Matter still exists, where is the evidence for this nonsense. Space, Time, the laws of physics as we know them break down at Plancks Constant, so where is there one shred of evidence that matter still exists? How does it function at that level? Again, where is the peer reviewed paper that gives us observed evidence that matter still functions and exists at Plancks Constant?

Everything we know about reality to this day so far points to a materialistic universe. No experiments to date or planned can probe the plank scale. Again, so where is your evidence to the contrary?

Also, you don't understand information or information theory and this is very evident. Because this entire posts is just Gobbledy Gook. You said things don't inherently hold information, what?? You have to be joking, of course they do. Information doesn't just disappear LOL. Where does the information go?

Really? Here's what information in physics means.

Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another"[citation needed]. The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things. It is a complete description of the thing, but in a sense that is divorced from any particular language. We might even consider the sum total of the information in a thing to be the ideal essence of the thing itself,

information

Hmm, seems information in physics is not information as in say, a textbook. It literally is just talking about the unique physical properties of things that identify them from other things. When we define a thing, we get an abstract form of information. Such as calling a hydrogen atom a hydrogen atom. That descriptor or information doesn't inherently exist for that particular thing. When we say the hydrogen atom has a particular charge, another piece of information that we apply to it, that doesn't mean it actually has a charge, it means we created an abstract piece of information to define through language what that physical property *should* be called.

Again, there ZERO evidence that supports materialism. Not one shred. Space, time, matter, the laws of physics as we know them all break down at Plancks Constant, so to say they matter still exists at this level is just pie in the sky wishful thinking with ZERO evidence to support this notion.

Zero evidence exists that matter and space break down at this level. No experiments conducted nor planned can probe this level. We do know for a fact though that our notion of time does break down before that level though. The reasons for that is a different thread all unto it's own though.

Information about these things could be stored in qubits. This makes more sense than saying the material still exists just because you want to believe it without any evidence. We know qubits still exist at this level but not matter as we know it in any form.

Do you even know what a qubit is?

The qubit is described by a quantum state in a two-state quantum-mechanical system, which is formally equivalent to a two-dimensional vector space over the complex numbers. One example of a two-state quantum system is the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarisation and horizontal polarisation. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.

You see, in order to have something called a qubit, you have to have a material object, such as a photon in this example. You make mention of a qubit as if it's a thing unto it's own with it's own idealistic properties in your fantastical idealistic magic world.

Now that I've posted sources from the science itself, I sure do hope you can do the same yourself.

reply to post by TripleSalCal

No, the brain does not. There is a reason that computer scientist are struggling to make AI. It is because what the human mind can really do is beyond what we can really comprehend right now.

Actually, the reason they're struggling is because the human brain is so complex, more complex than our current computer technology can handle at this time. Basically, it boils down to not being technologically advanced enough yet. This is also why we don't have manned missions to other stellar systems. We just lack the technology right now. We know it's possible and someday we'll achieve these goals, just now's not the time.

“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” - Buddha

reply to post by sirnex


I figured this is what you would do. You would run to Google and try and find a quote that you think supports a point of view and then you would quote it out of context. This is because you're not trying to learn anything, you're concerned about trying to win a debate. First you contradicted yourself. In your first post you said:

The only thing that breaks down at the plank level is time itself. Matter still exists, but how it FUNCTIONS at that level is entirely different than how it functions at the macroscopic level, like in a solar system.

Again, pure incoherent babble, but you said time breaks down at Planck's Constant. You then said matter still exists but it functions in a different way. Clearly you didn't have a clue as to what you're talking about but now in this posts you say:

In other words, neither you nor I can factually state that reality breaks down completely at this level.

When you realized you were not making any sense you figured you would try another approach. Instead of saying matter still exists because you couldn't find a Google link to support this, you now say well neither you nor I can know. No, you don't know and your primary goal is to try and win a debate without any substance, so you're all over the place.

Here's a quote from the link you provided from Briane Greene:

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene discusses briefly the strange world of the sub-Planck and how it "CREATES" the quantum universe by its averages. In his later work, The Fabric of the Cosmos, Greene states that "the familiar notion of SPACE and time do not extend into the sub-Planckian realm, which suggests that space and time as we currently understand them may be mere approximations to more fundamental concepts that still await our discovery.”

This uis exactly what I'm saying. There's ZERO evidence to support a materialistic notion of reality because space, time and the laws of physics as we know them break down. You said:

Everything we know about reality to this day so far points to a materialistic universe. No experiments to date or planned can probe the plank scale. Again, so where is your evidence to the contrary?

Again, you make these wild statements that make no sense. What points to a materialistic universe?

Are we in a holographic universe, do we live in a simulation, how does matter attain mass? What scientifically points to a materialistic universe? You're the one making the claim that EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT REALITY TO THIS DAY SUPPORTS A MATERIALISTIC UNIVERSE. Based on what? You make this statements of fact without a shred of evidence to support what you're saying. This is because you don't know what you're talking about and I'm sure you will Google to find more links and then run here and quote them out of context.

Again, more nonsense about information.

Hmm, seems information in physics is not information as in say, a textbook. It literally is just talking about the unique physical properties of things that identify them from other things. When we define a thing, we get an abstract form of information. Such as calling a hydrogen atom a hydrogen atom. That descriptor or information doesn't inherently exist for that particular thing. When we say the hydrogen atom has a particular charge, another piece of information that we apply to it, that doesn't mean it actually has a charge, it means we created an abstract piece of information to define through language what that physical property *should* be called.

This is just silly incoherent babble. Classical bits and qubits are not abstract forms of information. When we say it has a charge, it has a charge. What we call something describes an actual event. This has nothing to do with bits and qubits.

Bits and qubits store information. This is how information can escape a black hole. Matter can't escape a black hole but information can. This is because information survives at Planckian scales and matter doesn't. So we're not talking about abstract information. Information is stored on bits and qubits. You do know how a computer works? Information is stored on bits of 1's and 0's and there's nothing abstract about it. These classical bits are qubits on a quantum level. We know that space, time and the laws of physics as we know them break down at Planck's Constant but information doesn't. Information goes fron Bits to Qubits. So there isn't ONE SHRED of evidence that the materialistic view of the universe has any meaning beyond a persons personal belief system. At Planck scales there's ZERO evidence that the material universe as we know it exists in any way, shape or form.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I figured this is what you would do. You would run to Google and try and find a quote that you think supports a point of view and then you would quote it out of context. This is because you're not trying to learn anything, you're concerned about trying to win a debate. First you contradicted yourself. In your first post you said:

I quote from the science itself. This entire reply of yours does not contain any sources to back up your whimsical assertions to the contrary of what those quotes say.

Again, pure incoherent babble, but you said time breaks down at Planck's Constant. You then said matter still exists but it functions in a different way. Clearly you didn't have a clue as to what you're talking about but now in this posts you say:

Matter and time are two different thing's. Where is the contradiction? Quantum physics deals with how subatomic particles behave, it has never said that subatomic particles don't exist or are not real tangible objective things. If you have scientific sources that say otherwise, then by all means go right ahead and post those sources before hypocritically accusing me of the same "crimes" you commit yourself.

When you realized you were not making any sense you figured you would try another approach. Instead of saying matter still exists because you couldn't find a Google link to support this, you now say well neither you nor I can know. No, you don't know and your primary goal is to try and win a debate without any substance, so you're all over the place.

This uis exactly what I'm saying. There's ZERO evidence to support a materialistic notion of reality because space, time and the laws of physics as we know them break down. You said:

Again, everything we currently know about reality points to it being materialistic. Your the one claiming without sources and scientific backing that reality and matter breaks down and doesn't fundamentally exist and the reality itself is purely idealistic. I've just given you a quote that proves your assertion utterly false as not one single experiment has been conducted that proves your idealistic magic world.

This is just silly incoherent babble. Classical bits and qubits are not abstract forms of information. When we say it has a charge, it has a charge. What we call something describes an actual event. This has nothing to do with bits and qubits.

Bits and qubits store information. This is how information can escape a black hole. Matter can't escape a black hole but information can. This is because information survives at Planckian scales and matter doesn't. So we're not talking about abstract information. Information is stored on bits and qubits. You do know how a computer works? Information is stored on bits of 1's and 0's and there's nothing abstract about it. These classical bits are qubits on a quantum level. We know that space, time and the laws of physics as we know them break down at Planck's Constant but information doesn't. Information goes fron Bits to Qubits. So there isn't ONE SHRED of evidence that the materialistic view of the universe has any meaning beyond a persons personal belief system. At Planck scales there's ZERO evidence that the material universe as we know it exists in any way, shape or form.

In order for information to exist, something needs to hold that information. It's the same thing with energy, in order to have energy, you have to have matter to impart energy. Information and energy do not exist without matter and there is no evidence to the contrary and the fact that you've still not provided a single source proves this even further. You just keep running around rambling that it all doesn't exist and only your idealistic magic world exists without citing a single scientific source. That's what incoherent babble really is. You sound like a ranting mad man.

Just to keep things as simple as possible there is nothing materialistic about the universe it's all light and information. And one other thing our reality in not materialistic in nature it also light and information.

For some reason our minds think it is material, for so it is. For when you die it is all light and information again.

Thats it just like that.

Originally posted by jsettica
Just to keep things as simple as possible there is nothing materialistic about the universe it's all light and information. And one other thing our reality in not materialistic in nature it also light and information.

For some reason our minds think it is material, for so it is. For when you die it is all light and information again.

Thats it just like that.

Can you provide any scientific sources that support this view? I don't expect Matrix to do so, he never does. Would appreciate someone stepping up to the plate to scientifically prove this idealistic magic world!

reply to post by sirnex


reply to post by sirnex


while I appreciate your desire defend the observables, your shtick gets tired.

you might consider that abstractions of information are processed at every level of reality, especially with respect to biology. that information is processed as whole coherent units, rather than discontinuous linear sequences is reason enough to make the association with quantum theory. for evidence of this, please see my most recent thread with info from August stearn, quantum theoretic machines.

information is the core. my only agreement with you is that it does not necessarily supercede particles. it is more like a marriage.

please stop trying to steal the magic. it is real and it is science.

reply to post by sirnex

Can you provide any scientific sources that support this view?

Yes

This idealistic magic world!

Does exists.

How you just need to have a N.D.E to under stand that all of the scientific proof your looking for is just bunk.
With out that experience it just makes it harder to understand what is real in this world and what's not.
Sorry it's called insider knowledge one of the only true ways to get perspective of our reality with out the human filters that are always in place. Nothing exists all things are light and information.

The closest thing to all of this, it try to understand in a scientific way " What is love" where does it come from how does it work where is the proof that it actually exists. They are one of the same where does love come from just like the rest of it where does it all come from.

It just is.

reply to post by sirnex


Again, your're not making any sense. You keep making this claim.

I quote from the science itself.

Where? Where have you provided one quote or peer reviewed paper from science that supports a materialistic universe? You may wish this to be the case but this is just your wishful thinking.

Again, how can matter still exist without space, time or the laws of physics as we know them? You made the statement that matter still exists. Here's the quote:

Matter still exists, but how it FUNCTIONS at that level is entirely different than how it functions at the macroscopic level, like in a solar system.

Pure nonsense. How does it function at that level? Where is the evidence that matter exists at Planck scales? How can matter exist without space, time or the laws of physics as we know them. Let me quote from your source.

In his later work, The Fabric of the Cosmos, Greene states that "the familiar notion of SPACE and TIME do not extend into the sub-Planckian realm

You keep saying science supports a materialistic universe but we have nothing more than your incoherent statements of fact that mean nothing. If you have no evidence that the material universe exists at Planck Scales then you can't make the claim that we live in a materialistic universe. You can hold on to this as a belief system just like Islam is a belief system. I don't deny you your faith in Materialism.

With information you again make the ASSUMPTIONS that I eluded to in my first post. You assume that matter still exists at Planck's Constant because it's what you want to believe. There isn't any evidence to support this in any way shape or form. Again, if you have evidence that matter still exists without time, space or the laws of physics as we know them then present it. You assume that information must be stored on a material medium but you have ZERO evidence that the material exists at these levels.