Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of whether the universe is conscious and alive. The definition of life and consciousness is debated, with some arguing that it only applies to living organisms. However, others believe that even elementary particles possess consciousness and that the universe as a whole is conscious. Ultimately, the concept of synergy is brought up, highlighting the unique properties that arise when multiple things come together. The term "Quantum Decoherence" is mentioned as a way to understand the universe's tendency towards coherence and organization.
  • #281


Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
My answer is "yes", because consciousness expects the identical reaction on occurring events and self-improvement. We can observe this in the surrounding us world.

I'm not sure what you mean here.


Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Besides, a part of integer (the mankind) can not exceed the integer (the universe). In the any sense.

Food for thought...
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #282


Greetings !
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
that consciousness is a fundamental "substance" of the Universe...existing in EACH elementary particle -- and, collectively, in large, dynamic, coherent systems...like dogs, cats, cockroaches, humans, planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe ITSELF.
Intresting.
Is that a conclusion or an assumption ?
How do you justify such a conclusion(if that's what it is) ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #283


Originally posted by drag
Is that a conclusion or an assumption ?

It's a proposition.
 
  • #284


Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
...a part of an integer (mankind) cannot exceed the integer (the Universe).

What might M.F.Dmitriyev mean here...mathematically speaking?

Is he correct?

What might this mean re "consciousness"?

Anyone?
 
  • #285


Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Besides, a part of integer (the mankind) can not exceed the integer (the universe). In the any sense.

i don't think this makes much sense at all. how are we (by being conscious and the universe not) be exceeding the universe? and what is exceeding the universe in the first place?
 
  • #286


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
It's a proposition.
O.K. Even so, there should be some conclusive part in it, right ?
What is it then ? And even if you just wish to fully start from
this proposition, where do you go ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #287


Originally posted by drag
O.K. Even so, there should be some conclusive part in it, right ?
What is it then ? And even if you just wish to fully start from
this proposition, where do you go ?

Live long and prosper.

Actually, it's where I've been ...if you care to take the time to scroll back over this thread. (I'm sort of getting tired of my own speculations, as of late.)

Nonetheless, if you are of the mind, please scoll back just a couple of posts (end of previous page) to my questions regarding Dmytriev's "integer" statement.

Is he saying that a part of something cannot possesses a property that is not a property of the whole ?
 
Last edited:
  • #288


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, it's where I've been ...if you care to take the time to scroll back over this thread. (I'm sort of getting tired of my own speculations, as of late.)

Nonetheless, if you are of the mind, please scoll back just a couple of posts (end of previous page) to my questions regarding Dmytriev's "integer" statement.

Is he saying that a part of something cannot possesses a property that is not a property of the whole ?

That might be what he's saying, but (of course) I disagree.

You shouldn't be tired of your idea, but it is understandable, as you've had to repeat yourself numerous times now.

Let me (re-)explain the problems that I (and I don't speak for anyone else, these are just my hurdles) have with the idea:

1) If you propose that the entire Universe, as a whole, is conscious, then it's constituents shouldn't be conscious, because they are all parts of the one conscious entity. IOW, all of these parts should work together to make the entire Universe conscious, but none of them would be conscious on their own.

2) If, OTOH, you propose that every physical entity is consicous, then you have the problem of "compounded consciousness". IOW, if every neuron (for example) is conscious, then the logical conclusion is: The bigger the brain, the more conscious the individual.

3) Because of problem number 2, you have the problem of defining the "degrees" of consciousness. What makes one thing "more conscious" than another? Does it mean that they are more intelligent, more aware of their surroundings? If it's "more aware of their surroundings", then there should be some limit to how "aware" you can be, shouldn't there?
 
  • #289
Mentat:

Processing...
 
  • #290


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is he saying that a part of something cannot possesses a property that is not a property of the whole ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree too. There can be emergent properties, such as flocking in birds, organisation in ants, absorbancy in sponges, which are present at the macro level, but absent at the level of individual constituents. The problem is that consciousness does not in itself seem to be a physical or even organisational property. Emergentism seems able to explain conciousness from the outside (ie. in behavioural terms) but not from the inside ie. why is it like something to be a conscious entity. Panpsychism seems to fill this explanatory gap.

Check out William Seager's comments on 'Causal Grounding' in the link I posted earlier in the thread. Consciousness seems to lack the causal grounding which is found in all these other emergent phenomena.


Originally posted by Mentat
1) If you propose that the entire Universe, as a whole, is conscious, then it's constituents shouldn't be conscious, because they are all parts of the one conscious entity. IOW, all of these parts should work together to make the entire Universe conscious, but none of them would be conscious on their own.

Why does that have to be the case. If a mind is computation/the product of a computation and given that computations can be performed on a huge range of media, including living conscious humans passing around pieces of paper marked with symbols, why cannot the components of a conscious mind happen to be themselves conscious?
There is also evidence that the human mind may sometimes be separated into conscious compartments.

Originally posted by Mentat
2) If, OTOH, you propose that every physical entity is consicous, then you have the problem of "compounded consciousness". IOW, if every neuron (for example) is conscious, then the logical conclusion is: The bigger the brain, the more conscious the individual.

I think 'conscious' is too big a word for such entities - they (or the relationships between them) just need to have an aspect which can be combined into mental constructs. I don't think that anyone is really arguing that neurons or atoms or tables are conscious in themselves.

Originally posted by Mentat
3) Because of problem number 2, you have the problem of defining the "degrees" of consciousness. What makes one thing "more conscious" than another? Does it mean that they are more intelligent, more aware of their surroundings? If it's "more aware of their surroundings", then there should be some limit to how "aware" you can be, shouldn't there?

That degrees of consciousness exist can be verified by simple self-observation as you are falling asleep, waking up, or drunk. Some psychoactive drugs dramatically increase the level of conscious 'awakeness'.
 
  • #291
M Gaspar

Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

Possible,but all we can say now BASED ON ALL KNOWN OBJECTIVE DATA is that there is no good reason to believe that the universe is a living creature,not even a quantum computer (as Sheldrake,if I am not mistaken,has proposed).Some have speculated that the violation of Bell's inequalities proved by Alain Aspect's experiment of 1982 (and later variants) is a clear proof that all particles in the universe,minds included,are interconnected.Unfortunately this conclusion is too 'strong':we cannot send information with supraluminal speeds using quantum nonlocality and moreover from the fact that some particles are entangled does not follow that all particles in the universe are entangled ...For that we should prove that Bohm's Interpretation of QM (or another nonlocal hidden variables acceptable scientific hypothesis) is superior empirically to all other interpretations (the Copenhagen Interpretation included).Not a very likely probability given that all acceptable interpretations today have at base the same mathematical formalism,only ontologies differ,making exactly the same predictions.But of course there is no reason to believe that we have arguments beyond all reasonable doubt against idealism (this type at least),we must never forget that one of the axioms of science is (still) the apriori rejection of idealism in general...
 
Last edited:
  • #292
metacristi:

IOW: Give up.



Done.
 
  • #293


Gaspar, this is in response to your PM to me on 6/29 wherein you asked me to respond to your "last post". I assume that is the one dated 6/29. There is only one self contained part of that post, which is...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is he saying that a part of something cannot possesses a property that is not a property of the whole ?

I don't know what Dimitriyev meant, but I can comment on this in general. This is known as the fallacy of composition. A counterexample of the argument would be something like:

Sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous to humans. True
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False, ordinary table salt is NaCl.


If that's not what you wanted me to comment on, then let me know.
 
  • #294


Originally posted by Tom
I don't know what Dimitriyev meant, but I can comment on this in general. This is known as the fallacy of composition. A counterexample of the argument would be something like:

Sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous to humans. True
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False, ordinary table salt is NaCl.


If that's not what you wanted me to comment on, then let me know.
Yes. That's it. Thank you for your clarity.
 
  • #295


Originally posted by akhenaten
Why does that have to be the case. If a mind is computation/the product of a computation and given that computations can be performed on a huge range of media, including living conscious humans passing around pieces of paper marked with symbols, why cannot the components of a conscious mind happen to be themselves conscious?
There is also evidence that the human mind may sometimes be separated into conscious compartments.

The Multiple Drafts model, which is discussed in another thread, does away with the idea that the constituents of a conscious brain (or "mind", whichever you prefer) can themselves be conscious, since it is their combined efforts that produce "consciousness". So, either the Universe is a conscious "brain" or it's constituents are all, somehow, conscious, but not both.

I think 'conscious' is too big a word for such entities - they (or the relationships between them) just need to have an aspect which can be combined into mental constructs. I don't think that anyone is really arguing that neurons or atoms or tables are conscious in themselves.

But consciousness itself is a product of the innerworkings of these many parts. "Mental constructs" is misleading also, as phenomenology shouldn't be confused with actual, physical, objects. For example, if you imagine a purple cow, there is no physical object that comes into existence, but this exists only conceptually.

That degrees of consciousness exist can be verified by simple self-observation as you are falling asleep, waking up, or drunk. Some psychoactive drugs dramatically increase the level of conscious 'awakeness'.

While this is true, and there are degrees of consciousness in conscious beings, I was talking about degrees of consciousness in a physical sense. IOW, if a neuron is conscious (and, according to Panpsychism, it must be) then it must be "less conscious" then a collection of them (a brain), otherwise you'd have all of these different "complete" thoughts, battling for the attention of the human, whose skull they inhabit.
 
  • #296
Here it is, hypnogogue...

Thanks for your interest.

M. Gaspar
 
  • #297
Originally posted by steppenwolf
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

The ability to reflect, yes I believe now it's one of the most extinguished forms of intelligence and which makes us so human(ly good). And those who does little self reflection to be less human.

But I'm in the vague idea that existence, both in abstract things like math but also substance, is not standing still. It's expanding.
 
  • #298


Originally posted by Tom
Gaspar, this is in response to your PM to me on 6/29 wherein you asked me to respond to your "last post". I assume that is the one dated 6/29. There is only one self contained part of that post, which is...



I don't know what Dimitriyev meant, but I can comment on this in general. This is known as the fallacy of composition. A counterexample of the argument would be something like:

Sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous to humans. True
Therefore, any compound made up of sodium and chlorine is dangerous to humans. False, ordinary table salt is NaCl.


If that's not what you wanted me to comment on, then let me know.
I meant following :
If
POW=PA+PB+PC+PD+...+PZ...
then
PA+PB+PC+PD+...+PZ...=POW
Here
POW - property of the whole
PA - property A
PB - property B
etc.
Here, it is important to choose the whole correctly.
In your example the whole is chosen not correct.
NaCl is the other material (property) got as a result of chemical reaction of Na and Cl.
If take the Earth as the whole, which property is POE
then
POE=PNa+PCl+PNaCl+...+POC+...
Here POC - property of Consciousness.
You can not deny existence of this phenomena on the Earth.
Therefore at Universe.
 
  • #299
Originally posted by Eyesee
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.

Interaction is not the same as consciousness. It is not a matter of decission each time for gravity for example to attrack an object.
It does not require will or purpose. It just happens.
 
  • #300
Consciouss Universe?

The issue of wether or not the Universe is consciouss, has a very simple and straightforward explenation.

Firstly, we assume here that Universe means everything that exists in all time and all space.

So, the first thing we can ask then: what exists outside the universe? Answer: nothing. Of what can the universe then be consciouss? Answer: nothing. How can the universe distinguish between itself and something outside itself? Answer: It can't.
Does the universe exists objectively? No.
Explenation: we can state that something IN the universe exists. We can objectively relate with something in the universe. At the same time, something in the universe, outside of ourselves, can affirm our existence. So there is a mutual objective relation between ourselves, and something outside of ourselves. In that kind of situation, it is possible for a thing to be consciouss. For example: us.

The universe does not even exist objectively, since there is nothing outside of it, that can state it's existence, and the universe can not state the existence of anything outside of it.

It is therefore not possible that the universe is consciouss. But anything IN the universe can be consciouss.
 
<h2>1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?</h2><p>The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.</p><h2>2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?</h2><p>The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.</p><h2>3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?</h2><p>While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.</p><h2>4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?</h2><p>If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.</p><h2>5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?</h2><p>There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.</p>

1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?

The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.

2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?

The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.

3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?

While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.

4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?

If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.

5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?

There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
312
Replies
4
Views
924
  • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top