A Conscious Universe?


by M. Gaspar
Tags: conscious, universe
M. Gaspar
M. Gaspar is offline
#1
Apr5-03, 07:29 PM
M. Gaspar's Avatar
P: 598
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Review: With Galaxy S5, Samsung proves less can be more
Making graphene in your kitchen
Study casts doubt on climate benefit of biofuels from corn residue
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#2
Apr5-03, 08:14 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
This is just a matter of definition. And the definition of "life" and "consciousness" reserve there terms for living organisms only.
The problem is that if one would accept a broader definition of life and consciousness, then anything is life and conscious. Which isn't a handy term, because to say nothing is life and consciouss is then also true, it just makes life and conscious into meaningless terms.

You can only use definitions of the terms life and consciouss to distinguish properties of objects from others.
kyleb
kyleb is offline
#3
Apr5-03, 08:37 PM
kyleb's Avatar
P: 115
well sure but the universe is obviously liveing; i mean parts seem dead but plenty of it does not as well. but seeing as how we are alive and we are part of it, and conscious; it seems that the universe is also so by default.

Eyesee
#4
Apr5-03, 08:39 PM
P: n/a

A Conscious Universe?


The universe is conscious in that all its constituents are aware of each other. This is proven everytime we roll a bowling ball down a lane, or any other physical interaction you can think of: matter has to be aware of the existence of other matter in order to interact with each other.
kyleb
kyleb is offline
#5
Apr5-03, 09:00 PM
kyleb's Avatar
P: 115
oh ya i wasn't even thinking of the physics side of it as; good point Zero. [:)]
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#6
Apr5-03, 09:09 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by kyleb
well sure but the universe is obviously liveing; i mean parts seem dead but plenty of it does not as well. but seeing as how we are alive and we are part of it, and conscious; it seems that the universe is also so by default.
You are mixing terms here. Life is an opposite to dead. But life and dead are reserved for living organisms, which have the ability to self-reproduce. Maybe it is possible the universe is also self-reproducing, but then this means it is embedded in a larger reality.

I wouldn't call a rock for instance conscious, because it "knows" how gravitation works. I wouldn't call the universe life, because it is eternally changing.

But it is a matter of definition of course.
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#7
Apr5-03, 09:34 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
I have the will to live! ... Yes, but where did that will come from? ... Out of non-existence?
Kerrie
Kerrie is offline
#8
Apr5-03, 11:19 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
Kerrie's Avatar
P: 1,188
matter is like a television, and the energy of life is the electricity that turns it on...
steppenwolf
#9
Apr6-03, 04:58 AM
P: n/a
some scientists when asked why life exists answer that it is because the universe wanted to 'know' itself. this idea has always fascinated me, it just doesn't make sense but is oddly captivating
wuliheron
wuliheron is offline
#10
Apr6-03, 08:28 AM
P: 1,967
Heisenburg's personal philosophy supports this position, but Quantum Decoherence seems likely to seriously undermine attempts to prove it. Proving the idea that everything is ultimately consciousness or awareness may be impossible, but if it is possible at all it seems likely it can only be done on a statistical basis. Essentially you need to prove that there is no clear distinction between thought and physical reality and it is at least as useful to not distinguish between the two as it is to make the distinction.
M. Gaspar
M. Gaspar is offline
#11
Apr6-03, 11:55 AM
M. Gaspar's Avatar
P: 598
No time, at this moment, to look up the term Quantum Decoherence, but assume it means that things "fall apart".

Cosmologically speaking , aux contraire! The Universe tends toward COHERENCING -- hence, galaxies, stars and us. Of course, things explode and fall apart, but for the most part, it comes together over time.

As to whether there is consciousness "in" the Universe: well, WE are in the Universe, and We (or some of us) are conscious. Hence, the Universe has consciousness "in" it.

Actually, I believe (as others do -- tho not ALL others, of course) that everything -- even an elementary particle -- has a bit of consciousness to it. It is, perhaps, the (or ONE of the) connective threads that allows the Universe to be incommunication with -- and responsive to -- all of Its parts.
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#12
Apr6-03, 12:04 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No time, at this moment, to look up the term Quantum Decoherence, but assume it means that things "fall apart".

Cosmologically speaking , aux contraire! The Universe tends toward COHERENCING -- hence, galaxies, stars and us. Of course, things explode and fall apart, but for the most part, it comes together over time.

As to whether there is consciousness "in" the Universe: well, WE are in the Universe, and We (or some of us) are conscious. Hence, the Universe has consciousness "in" it.

Actually, I believe (as others do -- tho not ALL others, of course) that everything -- even an elementary particle -- has a bit of consciousness to it. It is, perhaps, the (or ONE of the) connective threads that allows the Universe to be incommunication with -- and responsive to -- all of Its parts.
This is something like asking wether a single water molecule can freeze, or if you can clap with one hand.

In fact, to have a better vision on this kind of question, you better use some dialectical laws like the transoformation from quantity into quality.

Like the boiling of water: at first you raise the temperature in a qualitative way, until suddenly, at the temperature of boiling, a qualitative change occurs, the water changes from liquid into gas while the water temperature remains the boiling temperature.
wuliheron
wuliheron is offline
#13
Apr6-03, 12:34 PM
P: 1,967
What you are referring to is called "synergy". Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately.

No time, at this moment, to look up the term Quantum Decoherence, but assume it means that things "fall apart".
Quantum Decoherence is not synonymous with entropy, hense it has a seperate and distinct nomenclature.

Cosmologically speaking , aux contraire! The Universe tends toward COHERENCING -- hence, galaxies, stars and us. Of course, things explode and fall apart, but for the most part, it comes together over time.
Now you contradict yourself. Which is it, does entropy rule or does syntropy? Syntropy is the opposite of entropy, the tendency of things to become more organized over time. If things simply become more organized over larger scales, then what is the meaning of life, the universe, everything? Order? What rhetorical nonsense.
M. Gaspar
M. Gaspar is offline
#14
Apr6-03, 03:15 PM
M. Gaspar's Avatar
P: 598
As I said, I didn't have time to look up the term "Quantum Decoherence"... so I was just GUESSING at its meaning. Since you were kind enough to tell me what it is NOT (entropy) perhaps you'll kindly tell me what is IS.

And how did I contradict myself when I never used the word "synoptry"...tho I guess I described it when I suggested that the Universe tends toward order (despite the co-existence of chaos). This has always been my position.

If there were no such tendency, then there would not be billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, and stars with orbiting planets, and at least ONE planet with organized chunks of sentience...namely, you and me.

Finally, to your question, which is roughly: what would be the point of this tendency toward coherency? And I say that at the moment of the most recent "Big Bang" (as with all others), the singularity that was Everything That Is burst forth to have ANOTHER EXPERIENCE!

The seeming fragmentation of all of Its parts belies Its connectedness.

Still, the diffusion of matter,energy, consciousness and spirit served the purpose of "mixing it up" as it were, like reshuffling the deck, so that natural forces of the Entity that is the Universe could pull things together in novel ways so that it could have a DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE than in Its PREVIOUS incarnations.

And how do I come to think that the Universe is "out to have an Experience"? If I were an Entity that just had a very complex and exhilarating experience that taught me many things about myself, would I then be content to sit and think about that experience through eternity. Or, would I want to see what I could create NEXT?

Please be specific when you point to my "rhetorial nonsense" so that I can continue to clarify my speculations for myself.
wuliheron
wuliheron is offline
#15
Apr6-03, 05:29 PM
P: 1,967
As I said, I didn't have time to look up the term "Quantum Decoherence"... so I was just GUESSING at its meaning. Since you were kind enough to tell me what it is NOT (entropy) perhaps you'll kindly tell me what is IS.
Quantum Decoherence is a phenomenon related to the Heisenburg Indetermancy Principle, quite likely the most fundamental physical principle discovered to date. Essentially, Heisenburg's personal philosophy was a pantheistic one similar to Buddhism which asserts existence is a consensual reality and everything is ultimately composed of awareness, whatever that might be. Quantum Decoherence is an idea that challanges this aspect of Indetermancy.

Shrondenger's Cat is the most famous thought experiment concerning Indetermancy and Quantum Decoherence. He showed that according to Quantum Mechanics as it was originally formulated, a cat could somehow be kept in a state of both alive and dead at the same time, until observed by someone. It's the modern physical update on the age old question of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it........ does it make a sound?" Not only does it not make a sound necessarilly according to Quantum Mechanics, but it may well have somehow both fallen and not fallen.

Quantum Decoherence attempts to make some sense of this connundrum by asserting that although this paradoxical state of affairs might be real, instead of the observer being responsible for its collapsing into something more reasonable, it is environmental noise. So far, the statistical evidence is in favor of Quantum Decoherence. Instead of our personal awareness dictating reality as we know it, it is environmental noise collapsing the wavefunction, again, whatever that might be.

As for entropy, there are several different scientific definitions of the word. Essentially though it refers to the tendancy of orderly systems to become more disordered.
M. Gaspar
M. Gaspar is offline
#16
Apr6-03, 06:04 PM
M. Gaspar's Avatar
P: 598
And more on "environmental noise"?
wuliheron
wuliheron is offline
#17
Apr6-03, 07:56 PM
P: 1,967
The essential statement of Quantum Mechanics is that everything is ultimately random. The order we observe is merely the residual of a profound chaos that underlies everything. This contrasts with the strong equivalency principle of Relativity which asserts that space=time=energy=mass=gravity etc. This is precisely why the theory of Relativity has proven irreconcilable with QM and the two theories have proven to be approximately equally accurate which only adds to the confusion.

Thus, "noise" is quite possibly a relative term or even an ineffable one, but it still has its uses. :0)
Mentat
Mentat is offline
#18
Apr6-03, 08:06 PM
P: 3,715
There are some drastic misconcetions here. First off, the universe does not tend toward more "coherence" just because things come together. Every time something comes together (from an atom to a galaxy) it creates HEAT; lots of it. This heat is disorderly (obviously), and thus the supposed "order" causes even greater actual disorder.

Another misconception has to do with consciousness/awareness. The universe cannot be aware if even primitive, living ("living" by biologists' standards), things are not aware. The universe itself is the collection of everything, and cannot thus be considered alive or dead, but parts of it (or "something"s) can be considered living or non-living.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Conscious vs. Non-Conscious Observation Quantum Physics 20
The Conscious! General Discussion 9
Conflict between the conscious and the sub-conscious Medical Sciences 3
Light having a conscious? General Discussion 20
Are we conscious? General Discussion 16