Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Observor
Thanks for your additional information (and I hope my recent post to you wasn't taken as criticism, quite the contrary).
I don't even know how that could have been construed as negative criticism. No worries there
I get rather well along with what you present in your post above and will add my own favourite of FTL quantum entaglement, indicating a
That mankind presently only have the option of labelling this trans-cosmic existence as 'consciousness' doesn't bother me in a rational context.
That label can and will be changed if evidence points in the direction of such a need.
Of course. I suspect there is more than one such level, but that is not important. What is important is the possibility of a non-local communication
channel akin to Quantum Entanglement.
But what DOES bother me is any effort of skipping from a purely semantic concept into those weird theist pseudo-reasoning chains, where the
label is taken as a justification for further speculations on semantic lines.
Doesn't bother me any less either. Of course, if the basic premises were accepted among the group participating in the discussion as happens during a
group of like-minded people, it is understandable. But on open discussion channels like this, it reeks of dishonesty especially when inviting and
challenging those of opposing viewpoints to the discussion.
The only other 'evidence' (if I can use that word so freely) we have of trans-cosmic existence is the 'direct-experiences' ('mystic',
transcendent) from different sources. But...
a/ Such experiences are far from examined seriously, nor are they uniform to such an extent, that even tentative overall conclusions can be made.
b/ The 'consciousnes' experienced in such (alleged) trans-cosmic direct-experiences is very different from the 'consciousness' manifested in
mundane, cosmic existence.
Direct experience is insufficient as evidence for any rational discussion unless it is common enough that few would dispute it.
Dr. Goswamy was referring to a detailed experiment where an attempt
to communicate non-locally by one when person changed the EM potentials on
a EEG of the other, where as no such change was observed when no such attempt was made. I am not sure how credible the experiment is or how warranted
the conclusions were, but that is a step in the right direction. To attempt to demonstrate scientifically the concept of non-local communication that
can be predicted directly from the theory.
Btw am I rather sceptical to the populistic use of 'the trousers of time'-model (parallel cosmoses). The 'observer-creation' part is
grossly exaggerated for the simple reason, that the hypothesis (ref. Schroedinger's cat) of 'observance' actually isn't restricted to
'observance' from a self-aware consciousness. The proper word would be 'interaction' or 'relating', which makes quite a difference.
Well, the parallel cosmoses is one interpretation
and has very few takers (I know one ardent fan of it, but it is understandable since his Ph.D
was on it
). You are not the only one that finds it less than comforting. The Copenhagen interpretation does not
of course require a self
aware consciousness. But it doesn't require interaction either. It only means that reality is nothing more than a projection of the possibility by a
consciousness, of any kind. It is not the attempt to interact and measure that results in the uncertainty. If there were no conscious observer, there
is no reality, only a possibility. This is the fundamental difference between classical and quantum mechanics.
Neither of the interpretations is quite compelling and the reason why professional physicists don't attach much importance to which interpretation is
"correct", since neither makes any verifiable/falsifiable predictions. They worry about verifiable predictions that can be made from the theory, for
example, Quantum Entanglement, Casimir Effect etc.