- #1
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?
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"?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Originally posted by wuliheron
And to think all this began with the ultimate ordered state, a singularity.
Sorry, but the definition of animate and inanimate is not so clear cut. I've sometimes described people as "hairy walking sponges prone to parasites" but the truth is us walking sponges are made out of teny tiny rocks and water. I think a human body rendered thus is worth maybe a few hundred dollars on the market today. Exactly where you draw the line between animate and inanimate, alive and dead, conscious and unconscious may be just a question of scale and relative perception.
For example, I cannot live without the air I breath, the water I drink, and the food I eat to name but a few of the essentials. Are they then to be considered alive or dead? This is a question biologists and whatnot have debated a great deal. For the most part they have settled on a working definition of life instead of attempting to create an absolute one.
A virus or prion, for example, cannot reproduce or move around or even "die" for that matter (if indeed they are alive) under their own power. Whether or not you consider them to be alive or just an interesting chemical reaction then is wholly dependent upon your perspective. Certainly viruses contain dna and evolve for survival like all recognized lifeforms, but so what.
Are mountains alive, is the Earth itself alive and just moving in slow motion? Ours is evidently a universe of unending change and irresistable forces. The more we learn about living things the more the universe appears to be geared towards producing them. Or, the more it seems living things are all there is.
This confusing situation gained renewed significance with the advent of Quantum Mechanics. Photons seemed to somehow know when someone was watching them and when they weren't and their behavior changed accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I am most emphatically not asserting that the entire universe is alive and conscious, just emphatically stating that anyone who asserts they know the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is suspect.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Firstly, there are those who believe that there is consciousness in everything...even elementary particles. The fact that this can't be "tested" or "measured" AT THE MOMENT doesn't preclude it as a POSSIBILITY. I am simply taking the position that its possible.
Secondly, are you suggesting that the formation of billions of galaxies, each made up of billions of stars, some of which have planets orbiting about them, and at least ONE of those planets has given rise to coherent chunks of sentient beings (namely, us) -- is NOT "evidence" that the Universe tends toward coherency?
Thirdly, is an atom "not living"? How about it's electrons. Are quarks "not living". How about muons and mesons? Some might say they ARE, but even if they are NOT by YOUR or a biologist's definition, do they NOT join together to make up entities such as US... and are WE not "alive". If we -- as creatures -- are more than the sum of our parts, then so, too, might the Universe.
I think you slightly missed my point. I'm not saying that the universe is not moving and animate. I am saying that it is "living", by biologists' standards. One of the requirements to be considered a "living" thing, is that it (or at least members of it's species) be able to reproduce more of themselves, and this alone disqualifies the universe.
Also, awareness/consciousness is the product of learning, and the universe has no (known) processing unit, by which to learn.
But we are not more than the sum of our parts, and that is the point. An atom is not living, because it takes many atoms to make a living thing (the least complex of which is a cell).
Originally posted by wuliheron
According to the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the universe is constantly giving birth to other universes. I don't want to go into the pornographic details, but that is a distinct possiblity. Likewise, it may be learning new tricks-of-the-trade but, again, I don't want to go into the pornographic details. This is, after all, a scholarly site.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
The fact the that Universe may keep reproducing ITSELF -- via endless expansion and contractions -- is good enough for ME.
As to It's ability to process information: if, indeed, every piece of matter/energy had a piece of consciousness "in" it, and these bits of consciousness were "connected" in some way, then this would be the network though which information -- both incoming and outgoing -- would be processed.
I am taking the case that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.
I am seeing how far I can go with this in the face of mechanistic viewpoints. So far, so good, I think.
Not pornography, Biology. BTW, the universe is not producing more universes, these supposed "other universes" have not been observed and thus only half exist.
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"?
Deride? No. I only say "unconscious" in the sense that most of us can't tap into it directly (and speak with it), other than that I don't see why it can't be one and the same ... In fact it makes a great deal of sense.Originally posted by M. Gaspar
IACCHUS:
You've managed to lump a few things together in an attempt to discredit the speculation that there's a thread of consciousness that runs through everything... so that the Universe is nicely "hooked up".
Do we have dreams that tap in? Maybe.
Is there a spiritual aspect to the Universe? Possibly.
Are archetypes a way of talking about similar "things" and, like any other "model", not exactly "real"? Probably so.
Do these things constitute a "realm" that includes -- NOT the Collective UNconscious (though there might be that,too) but the Collective CONSCIOUSNESS -- or network of thought -- that may or may not exist as part of the Universe.
Perhaps you construed my original comment as derisive? Which in effect probably was, but only in the sense that it's rather obvious and I don't need to look any further than myself. And yet the derisive part would have been directed more towards those who would have you believe otherwise (that the Universe wasn't conscious).Originally posted by Iacchus32
I have the will to live! ... Yes, but where did that will come from? ... Out of non-existence?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What do grubs know, except perhaps intuitively, what it's like to be a butterfly?
Could it be this is a reflection of our own condition, where we too are earthbound and in need of a "grubstake," as we look around with ravenous appetites and devour everything in sight?
It all seems kind of narrow-minded dosen't it? But then what does a grub know? Not much beyond being a grub I suppose ... but, there will come a time ...
We go to the ends of the universe to discover the truth, with a slew of fancy instruments and calculations and "God" knows what else? (and only he can) but, when you get right down to it, what do we really know beyond what a grub knows, as we "grub" around in the dark?
But, there will come a time in the life of the grub when he says enough is enough, I've had it, leave me alone, I would just like to lay down for awhile.
You see I've stripped the "Tree of Knowledge" bare, and now that I'm full (of myself?), what's the point? Where's the silken thread (wisdom) to this big walking sack of knowledge? I need some time to reflect.
Ahh, what's that you say? Something's coming out my rear end? What? I have everything back to front? Could it be? Yes, there it is! ... the thread ... and, what does the thread say? 1 + 1 = 2. Wow! even a little child could understand that! ... and therein lies the answer.
Perhaps what we need is to take some time out from our "worldliness" and reflect on why 1 + 1 = 2? For if in fact you can see this for yourself, without someone else to say it was so, then why isn't it possible to acknowledge the existence of God? Once again, if you were to ask little children about this (if God existed), most would probably relpy, "Yes."
And from the "one mind" we fallen, to accept "the two," and hence the "knowledge of opposites." 1 + 1 = 2.
I subscribe to all of the above, even the last, because I can't say I've never been without delusion. Hmm... I wonder if this is what wuliheron means by acceptance?Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...this, too, shall pass...
...like the thread you have managed to EXpell, but no DISpell.
It seems there are many camps:
In MY camp, the UNIVERSE is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts -- not "created BY" an "outside force" called "God" -- but an Eternal Entity of Energy that goes on and on (much like WE do!).
In YOUR camp, "God" is an all-knowing, all-powerful "Creator of the Universe" who is made evident by "His" works.
In OTHER camps, "God" is NOT so evident and must be SOUGHT.
In STILL OTHER camps, "God" must be "proven" mathematically.
There's ALSO a camp that proclaims "God" is "His" own "SON"...a hat trick I will never understand.
Then there's ANOTHER camp that calls "God" another name and believes "He" has asked them to fly airplanes into buildings. (...which is not to deride the LARGER camp that bellieves "the Struggle" is within OURSELVES).