Can existence outside of the physical world be defined and discussed?

[Loren Booda]

If so, what physical parameters define them?

 

[Serene_Chaos]

i voted no, but i believe that they may need a physical body in order to exist

 

[QMistic]

Ok, I voted no. My first thought was, if we are talking about a physical universe, what purpose would there be for a none physical entity to force the wave collapse? But then I remembered what I have been reading by Ken Wilber, Valorie Hunt, Deepak Chropra, and realized I had not converted what I was learning to my own reality. Hmm, Is this a step toward defining the observer, by agreeing that he is not physical?

Steve

 

[Michael Dmitriyev]

If so, what physical parameters define them?

I think that the observer this information concept but not physical.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Voted yes. The question didn't single out conscious observers, so I'm counting any particle or system that changes upon interaction with another particle or system as an observer (i.e. somehow records the observation via a change of state).

If we wanted to get more picky, a more common definition of the word 'observer' is simply a system like the one above with the capacity to not only observe but to be consciously or subconsciously aware of it. While the mechanisms of consciousness are not fully understood, those aspects of it that are or that have well-founded theoretical explanations are entirely physical AFAIK. We understand it more and more as further study progresses, so there is no reason I see to believe that when a full understanding of consciousness is arrived at, that understanding will be of a fully physically-explained consciousness.

I cannot, then, answer the second question beyond 'at a fundamental level, the limitations of the laws of physics' - taking the view that all fundamental laws of nature are laws of physics and all other laws of nature are emergent from more fundamental laws of physics.

 

[net_nubie]

I've voted yes, mainly because whenever we solve any problem, we assume that the observer is present. Also if the observer is not physical, how can it 'observe'; if it is not physical, then why talk about it in physics.

 

[sameandnot]

is the universe essentially physical?

you are essentially assuming that "what is", the Reality, is fundamentally physical. i say this, because you must be referring to the "problem" of QM, where the act of observing affects the outcome of "physical" events. therefore, i say, you are in assumption that the universe is basically "physical", and that an observer must, in fact, be "physical". for if the observer is non-physical, then Reality, too, it follows, is non-physical. see?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

you are essentially assuming that "what is", the Reality, is fundamentally physical. i say this, because you must be referring to the "problem" of QM, where the act of observing affects the outcome of "physical" events. therefore, i say, you are in assumption that the universe is basically "physical", and that an observer must, in fact, be "physical". for if the observer is non-physical, then Reality, too, it follows, is non-physical. see?

Yes, that's basically my view too. If an entity suspected of being non-physical were to interact with a physical entity in the same way that another physical entity does, what is it that makes it non-physical? So if there is a non-physical reality out there, it seems logical we would never be aware of it in the way we are aware of consciousness or information, and so have no reason to think it exists (whether it does or not).

 

[Loren Booda]

If measurement involves physical interaction with the observer, as QM seems to indicate, why has the magnitude of that action upon the observer never itself been measured?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

If measurement involves physical interaction with the observer, as QM seems to indicate, why has the magnitude of that action upon the observer never itself been measured?

I'm not sure I understand the question. First off, a physical interaction between the observer and the subject is not AFIAK a QM notion. If you observe the moon, there is a physical interaction twixt you and it mediated by light. This is as true in classical physics as it is in QM.

But I don't understand what you mean about not measuring the magnitude of action upon the observer during observation. Can you provide an example where the change in the observer isn't measurable?

 

[mmarko]

Forgive what may seem like sophism.
If an observer exists it exists in the universe. The universe is physical.
It is the definition of physicality. Therfore an observer is physical.

As Wittgenstein discusses, only the physical can be discussed. The meta-physical cannot. Therefore a discussion of existence outside the logical space of existence is not something that can be defined in order to be considered.

If an obsserver were not physical, the observer would be irrelevent. There is no definition I know of to descibe the existence of a thing outside the system in which all existence takes place.

There is no meta-position possible to make an extra-system description of the universe, therefore it is impossible to describe this system in terms of anything else. An observer which was not physical in this system would probably be defined as physical one or more meta positions (using a meta-language) upward. So within a wider hierarchy of references our "non-physical" observer would still be physical even if we called it not physical.

Everybody loves somebody sometime.

 

[nemosum]

I agree with mmarko. And besides, the whole point of physics is to determine how the universe works, through experimentation etc. You can't experiment with something that is not physical, therefore trying to do so gets you no where really fast.

 

[alfredblase]

I voted yes. Since the universe is seen only from my point of view, and since I believe that I cannot interact with non-physical entities, (try and prove me wrong), then non-physical entities do not exist, (try and prove me wrong). So yes from my point of view, (the only one that exists, or at any rate the only one that counts) an observer has to be physical (try proving me wrong). There may be a non-physical observer out there somewhere but it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned, and never will unless I go completely insane or as the case may be, unless I recover my sanity.

 

[QMistic]

So yes from my point of view, (the only one that exists, or at any rate the only one that counts) an observer has to be physical (try proving me wrong). There may be a non-physical observer out there somewhere but it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned, and never will unless I go completely insane or as the case may be, unless I recover my sanity.

Alfred,

So you are saying that you are 'physical' and you are the 'observer', therefore all observers must be physical. Then you ask others to prove you wrong in this subjective, inductive reasoning. Do you not first need to prove that it is your being 'physical' that qualifies you as an observer.

Let me ask just what physical part of you did the 'observing'? Was it your eyes which received photons and converted the signal to electro/chemical info, or was it your brain that received the info and interpreted it into a concept? What actually caused the wave/particle collapse:the eye seeing, the brain interpreting, or was it the consciousness of the individual who is aware of what he/she is seeing/interpreting that causes the collapse.

Do we not need to define 'observer' or what function of observing constitutes an observer, in order to determine if physicality is necessary?

Qmistic

 

[alfredblase]

No, we all know what physical means, and we all know what an observer is. Since I am the only observer in the universe... oh.. that's it! since I am the only observer in the universe and I am composed of matter, then it is undeniable that all observers are composed of matter and therefore all observers are physical.

 

[QMistic]

Ok, Alfred.

But may I ask how you define physical? Are all sub-atomic particles physical. How about the photon which has not mass? Is is physical? Yet it, without mass, acted in a physical world of particles with mass as a messenger of what is 'out there'.

Every particle with mass exists most of the time as a wave. Like a wave in the sea, the wave is only energy but it is the water that has mass. Is the wave 'physical' or is it just the water that is physical?

Surely you see the problem with defining what is physical and limiting interaction with with other particles to that definition. If a mass-less non physical photon can interact with particles we think of as physical, why would the observation of the universe be limited to physical observers or the physical nature of the observer?

Steve

 

[alfredblase]

Because I'm the ONLY observer in the universe... (I made you all up, I made up this computer screen, I invented the universe and then convinced myself you all are actually out there somewhere, I am god), and I define the word physical. And I define myself to be physical.

I guess my whole point is that you can't prove me wrong, ever, as this question is purely philosophical, and so I am right in saying that all observers are physical, having a pefectly logical line of argument. I never said you were wrong...

 

[QMistic]

Well then Alfred,

While this is the philosophy section of the forum, you seem to be dismissing my argumentation because it is "purely philosophical".

In YOUR universe, are any of my arguments about mass-less entities interacting with particles of mass different then the rest of us? In your universe, do you consider mass-less entities such as energy waves, magnetic fields or the strong force to be physical objects?

Steve

 

[alfredblase]

I am not dismissing your argument at all. I am dismissing the question posed by this thread xD Have you really found a weakness in my argument? If so please come out with it :P Although I won't deny this thread is stimulating, interesting and amusing all at the same time.

As to your questions about what is physical... if you are a physicist, (I seem to have forgotten how I defined you when I invented you :P) if you were physicist then you wouldn't be asking me that question. At the risk of triggering a torrent of posts I will answer your question. Something made of matter is physical, (you never denied that). A photon interacts with physical objects, and therefore interacts physically, therefore it has physical properties. Indeed it is a physical object...

Ok you seem to want to stick to the framework of physics in this discussion, well earlier on this thread, the question was resolved satisfactorily in my opinion in that sense.

In conclusion, it nearly always pays to repeat oneself, I'm the ONLY observer in the universe, and I define the word physical. And I define myself to be physical.

 

[sameandnot]

Forgive what may seem like sophism.
If an observer exists it exists in the universe. The universe is physical.
It is the definition of physicality. Therfore an observer is physical.

As Wittgenstein discusses, only the physical can be discussed. The meta-physical cannot. Therefore a discussion of existence outside the logical space of existence is not something that can be defined in order to be considered.

If an obsserver were not physical, the observer would be irrelevent. There is no definition I know of to descibe the existence of a thing outside the system in which all existence takes place.

There is no meta-position possible to make an extra-system description of the universe, therefore it is impossible to describe this system in terms of anything else. An observer which was not physical in this system would probably be defined as physical one or more meta positions (using a meta-language) upward. So within a wider hierarchy of references our "non-physical" observer would still be physical even if we called it not physical.

Everybody loves somebody sometime.

still, the ASSUMPTION is that the universe is "physical", because it seems to be. have we considered that, in some way, no matter how far-fetched to common perception, that "physical" reality is some how dependent upon a non-"physical" "entity".

i mean... this really can't be that far-fetched, considering that "my" perception of "physical" reality depends, intrinsically, on my being aware and conscious, to begin with. otherwise, i have no conception of "physicality" at all. so, in at least one sense, "physical" reality is dependent upon some deeper Reality, known to us as "consciousness", which perceives via the sense-organs.

the sense-organs have already, by the time we perceive it at all, done immensely complex re-organization of Reality, in a way that can be comprehended by the mind.

 

[sameandnot]

can "awareness" be considered physical? or must awareness be "behind" physicality, in order for "physicality" to be "perceived" at all? is the "observer" the eyeball, or body? or does the observer have eyeballs and a body at its disposal? can a physical "object" be said to have any other physical "object" "at it's disposal", unless there is an awareness and consciousness that is able to use the "disposed" object?

 

[sameandnot]

isn't physicality "conscious" or at the very least, "aware" that an observer is present? otherwise, how would there be any affectation? we can say that Earth is "aware" of the Sun, as it is incessantly drawn to it. gravity can be understood as an interaction based on awareness, even though the subsequent action is "only" (which is itself an assumption, when considered philosophically) of one kind.

 

[Loren Booda]

El Hombre Invisible,

"Upon measuring directly a displacement of Planck length L*, the measurer would receive a momentum reaction equal to h/L*, or 4,000,000 gm-cm/sec, beyond the kick of a mule" (from my website). Any QM action, by and upon the observer but greater than h, seems disallowed under quantum gravity, while classical actions may exceed (and in fact may also be defined by a lower bound of) Planck's constant.

 

[QMistic]

Sameandnot,

thereYaGo

Steve

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible,

"Upon measuring directly a displacement of Planck length L*, the measurer would receive a momentum reaction equal to h/L*, or 4,000,000 gm-cm/sec, beyond the kick of a mule" (from my website). Any QM action, by and upon the observer but greater than h, seems disallowed under quantum gravity, while classical actions may exceed (and in fact may also be defined by a lower bound of) Planck's constant.

Loren.

Apologies for not reading this sooner. I misunderstood your point about action (which I intepretted generally).

The point I was trying to make was that to make a measurement you need some kind of measuring device that transmits information from the object to the observer, otherwise you haven't made a measurement.

In most cases of simple direct measurement, this measuring device is the optical and nervous systems of the human observer. The measurement itself isn't one event, but a series of them: several absorptions and re-emissions of photons, currents along nerves, and ultimately a rearrangement of neurons by changing axon connections. At any of these stages, technical feasibility aside, a change of state could be measured and, as such, I would consider them a series of discrete unconciousness 'observations'.

While it is easy to say: "X is measured", we cannot glean any usefulness about such statements in questions such as "Is the observer physical?" unless we say how X is measured. We need to know what is actually being measured and how. In the case of something being displaced by a Planck's length... how would we measure this?

 

[Loren Booda]

El Hombre Invisible,

By the the purported reaction of Planck momentum on the observer from measuring the Planck length object complement. This reaction to the observer is usually unnoticable. For a gamma ray of highest frequency (10³⁰ s^-1), one might have a reaction of 10^-8 g-cm/s, still relatively small.

 

[Rade]

I posted this elsewhere with little response, but it also seems to fit here. My question is, suppose it were possible to invent a quantum machine and that this machine was able to conduct "internal" observation. Would such a machine be physical and would such a machine be able to violate the HUP, that is, observe two events with 0.0 % error at the same time ? All talk about the HUP assumes an external observer--but what of the internal observer, observing itself ? I have no answers, just questions.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible,

By the the purported reaction of Planck momentum on the observer from measuring the Planck length object complement. This reaction to the observer is usually unnoticable. For a gamma ray of highest frequency (10³⁰ s^-1), one might have a reaction of 10^-8 g-cm/s, still relatively small.

But this is the thing: if the act of measuring has no impact on the observer, the observer wouldn't have actually measured anything. Assuming the observer measures the object by sight, and since we're measuring something on the Planck scale, this must be with the use of some device, what we are really observing is photons from this device with our own natural optical and nervous systems. This does have a measurable effect on the observer.

It is technologically unfeasible to measure the state of an atom in the lens of a human observer's eye (and would probably stop the measurement from being a measurement), or the increased current in an optic nerve, or the change in arrangement of neurons in the brain, but the observer him/herself is equipped with all the measuring apparatus they need to measure the effect on her/himself. The act of simply being conscious of the measurement is a measurement of the effect on the observer. In fact, that is exactly what a conscious measurement is - we observe nothing first-hand, not even light.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I posted this elsewhere with little response, but it also seems to fit here. My question is, suppose it were possible to invent a quantum machine and that this machine was able to conduct "internal" observation. Would such a machine be physical and would such a machine be able to violate the HUP, that is, observe two events with 0.0 % error at the same time ? All talk about the HUP assumes an external observer--but what of the internal observer, observing itself ? I have no answers, just questions.

I disagree this fits here. I suggest you start your own thread?

 

[debeng]

if you are a physiscist, every god damn thing is physical.

 

[Castlegate]

I say no, but I don't think anything in this universe is physical.

 

[quantumcarl]

If so, what physical parameters define them?

The physical parameter that defines an observer as being physical is that they experience anything whatsoever. When they experience enough curiosity to question whether they're physical or not there is a high probablity they are. If they weren't physical there'd be no question about it.
Its like asking if the light on the train tracks is a train coming or if its some joker with a flashlight. Either way, its a light, and those are train tracks.

The main reason I voted yes is because, as a reference, I consider my position on the spectrum of scale to be physical. By saying reference I also refer to the fact that, in decided terms I am defined as physical by the physical sciences and I accept that definition as much as I accept other basic concepts like "sunrise" "heartbeat" "water" "breathing" and "life".

These concepts and terminologies and the concept that the observer is physical are tools we use to study and describe our universe and therefore they are the terms that indicate my relation to other densities in my proximity.

The idea that the observer is physical is a simple form of categorization. Categorization is useful in helping to distiguish observed categories and the differences between categories. These "pidgeonholes" tend to form a common or standard knowledge that is easier to be gathered and shared amongst a community of scientists and others. This builds a community awareness and an ability to progress for the people of that community.

Anyone who really believes they're not physical wouldn't eat and would definitely try to walk through speeding trains and across the atlantic. Any no voters doin' much of that these days?

I'd say the observer is pretty close to "not physical" when he/she's observing some Galactic Warrior slash his character to bits on an LCD screen that's in front of his couch for 9 hours.

 

[Castlegate]

Anyone who really believes they're not physical wouldn't eat and would definitely try to walk through speeding trains and across the atlantic. Any no voters doin' much of that these days?

Well ...Being that I am on the other side of the coin. I.E. the other alternative (conceptual reality rather than physical). Why is it that Physical reality must follow certain rules, while conceptual reality does not? Why is it that the concept me somehow has the ability to walk through a concept wall, while the physical me can't walk through a physical wall? Why can't Conceptual reality have the same rules as your choice (physical realty)?

 

[quantumcarl]

Why is it that Physical reality must follow certain rules, while conceptual reality does not? Why is it that the concept me somehow has the ability to walk through a concept wall, while the physical me can't walk through a physical wall? Why can't Conceptual reality have the same rules as your choice (physical realty)?

Conceptual reality is governed by a rule that is deeply rooted in physical reality. In order to conceptualize any reality whatsoever you apparently need a physical brain. Try having your brain removed and get back to us on whether or not you are still experiencing a concept of reality/no reality etc... (conceptually speaking)

 

[Castlegate]

Conceptual reality is governed by a rule that is deeply rooted in physical reality. In order to conceptualize any reality whatsoever you apparently need a physical brain. Try having your brain removed and get back to us on whether or not you are still experiencing a concept of reality/no reality etc... (conceptually speaking)

What I was getting at is that the universe as a whole is not a physical entity. That would include someones brain.Thats right - your brain is a conceptual entity. Same as a rock.

 

[quantumcarl]

the universe as a whole is not a physical entity.

Is this something one discovers after a brainectomy!?

Is this a concept cooked up by the (very physical) brain in your head?

What brain has actually experienced the "whole universe" in order to be able to support your statement?

 

[Castlegate]

Is this something one discovers after a brainectomy!?
Is this a concept cooked up by the (very physical) brain in your head?
What brain has actually experienced the "whole universe" in order to be able to support your statement?

I love a skeptic.
Think that your brain is not made up of bits of matter separated by nothing at all, but rather forms of nothing at all that act in accordance with conceptual laws. Your overall experience is the same, but your approach to it is completely different.

 

[quantumcarl]

I love a skeptic.
Think that your brain is not made up of bits of matter separated by nothing at all, but rather forms of nothing at all that act in accordance with conceptual laws. Your overall experience is the same, but your approach to it is completely different.

I disagree.

Concepts are what our brain uses to describe the sensory data it receives.

Conceptualization creates an illusion for people who can't handle the reality of the universe in its raw form... which is pure, unadulterated energy and (perhaps) the lack thereof.

 

[Castlegate]

I disagree.
Concepts are what our brain uses to describe the sensory data it receives.
Conceptualization creates an illusion for people who can't handle the reality of the universe in its raw form... which is pure, unadulterated energy and (perhaps) the lack thereof.

And that energy is no more than geometric entities composed of nothing at all. They move in accordance to conceptual laws. Sounds like a plan.

 

[quantumcarl]

geometric entities ...nothing at all. ...accordance ...conceptual laws.

These are your personal concepts. This is a result of a physical, biological brain trying to make sense of the unknown.

Sounds like a plan.

Sounds like religion.

 

[Rader]

If measurement involves physical interaction with the observer, as QM seems to indicate, why has the magnitude of that action upon the observer never itself been measured?

You should read this paper
Gao Shan
http://cogprints.org/2550/01/qtec.PDF

 

[quantumcarl]

Yes, the observer is physical.

"Are Observer's Physical?"

Observation requires a distinction between what is observed and the observer. The distinction is a separation and separation denotes a relative, physical quality (by definition... ie. "space between").

When there is observation there is separation and if there is separation between what is being observed and the observer then both are physical... by definition.

Further to that, the act of observing is a physical act. It does not take place without neurotransmitters, synapses, dendritic connections and axions, sodium/potassium pumps, osmosis and a slew of other physical functions, actions and attributes.

Once again, the question provides its own answer.

 

[Castlegate]

"Are Observer's Physical?"
Observation requires a distinction between what is observed and the observer. The distinction is a separation and separation denotes a relative, physical quality (by definition... ie. "space between").
When there is observation there is separation and if there is separation between what is being observed and the observer then both are physical... by definition.
Further to that, the act of observing is a physical act. It does not take place without neurotransmitters, synapses, dendritic connections and axions, sodium/potassium pumps, osmosis and a slew of other physical functions, actions and attributes.
Once again, the question provides its own answer.

Since it is obvious that you are so sure of yourself. It is beyond dificult to get you to entertain any other possibilities. In that vain my message to you is a purely physical one.
I'm curious as to what physical characteristics (thought) has.

 

[sameandnot]

I'm curious as to what physical characteristics (thought) has.

depends, right?
increase/decrease seratonin, alter testosterone/estrogen, altered state of physicality as well as mentality (they are not as different as one tends to think.).
thoughts i have also affect other people. which is to say that thoughts are not only characteristic of physcial conditions, and viceversa, but also that they are not private (strictly speaking). my thoughts about "you" do affect the totality of the "play of physicality", or the "dance of the physical".

is there a difference between 1-, 2-, 3-dimensional characterstics and 4-dimensional characteristics? in other words, to see something, statically, in a 3-dimenmsional state, surely offers the "observer" and particular kind of "physical" characteristics; can we measure affections in 4-dimensions and thereby denote physical charactersitics to something that was hitherto conceived as "non-physical"?

science, it seems, for the most part, has looked at the world, almost strictly, from the 3-dimensional perspective. that is, they "saw" things, (were able to account for things consisting of particular masses and volumes and what-not) and then attributed the affects of time on them.
can science be done from a perspective that is wholly integrated into the 4th dimension? and is not restricted to labeling reality on the basis of a 3-dimensional perspective?

i think that for all of my lack of clarity and precision, the idea is valuable. especially when we are trying to determine what is "physical" and what is "not physical"?

(mind fart: photons are not massive, but they are considered physical. what makes them different from a thought?)

 

[quantumcarl]

depends, right?
increase/decrease seratonin, alter testosterone/estrogen, altered state of physicality as well as mentality (they are not as different as one tends to think.).
thoughts i have also affect other people. which is to say that thoughts are not only characteristic of physcial conditions, and viceversa, but also that they are not private (strictly speaking). my thoughts about "you" do affect the totality of the "play of physicality", or the "dance of the physical".
is there a difference between 1-, 2-, 3-dimensional characterstics and 4-dimensional characteristics? in other words, to see something, statically, in a 3-dimenmsional state, surely offers the "observer" and particular kind of "physical" characteristics; can we measure affections in 4-dimensions and thereby denote physical charactersitics to something that was hitherto conceived as "non-physical"?
science, it seems, for the most part, has looked at the world, almost strictly, from the 3-dimensional perspective. that is, they "saw" things, (were able to account for things consisting of particular masses and volumes and what-not) and then attributed the affects of time on them.
can science be done from a perspective that is wholly integrated into the 4th dimension? and is not restricted to labeling reality on the basis of a 3-dimensional perspective?
i think that for all of my lack of clarity and precision, the idea is valuable. especially when we are trying to determine what is "physical" and what is "not physical"?
(mind fart: photons are not massive, but they are considered physical. what makes them different from a thought?)

Castlegate should get an idea of how I would answer his last question from reading sameandnot's post here.

Thoughts are a result of the synaptic firing of neurons. The neurons fire either because of interal stiimulus or because of external stimulus.

Internal stimulus can be anything from chemical processes in the stomache (hunger), to hormonal activity to the production of certain proteins by DNA strands.

External stimulus can range from EM waves created by thoughts being generated in other organisms (like humans) and the events caused by those thoughts... such as architecture, wars, music ad infinitum... as well as other natural occurances like spinning galaxies and EM frequencies of the sun (light) and other waves etc...

If there is such a state as "non-physical" it is difficult for us to see it or even to imagine it because we are physical in the sense that our observations are made from a juxtopposing position to things "non-physical" where energy (a physical attribute) is manifest as physical matter.

People try to conceive of "non-physical" but that's like a fish trying to conceive of living on land in open air in the rain. Rather difficult and, to any self respecting fish, absurd.

 

[nk]

Oververs are Both, physical AND Platonic

Physical Observers:

Axioms:

(1) Conservation of energy is true.

(2) "Nothing Exists" is self contradictory. There is no physical or spiritual / platonic notion like "nothing exists" by virtue of the very fact that it is being cognized. Implying it's statement itself requires something to exist and hence "nothing exists" cannot be.

Our Universe exists due to a consciousness and one such entiy is sufficent and nessesary.(C)

It's proof cannot be as it is being assumed as an Axiom. This is not evasion or inability to prove, but appeals to yourselves to honestly report the following: When(if) you were sedated until your Mind no longer was "conscious" where did the consciousness "go" if it contained energy? By conservation of energy it should have remained and you shouldd have the memories of the ensuing surgical operation or whatever, but did you?. In sleep we either have dreams or we do not. In either case do we retain consciousness when it is used in the usual common sense? Al we might recall are dreams which are thoughts and since thoughts have energy their perfect / imperfect recall from memory buffers (called engrams I beleive) recalls. Thus Mind is the occasion (energy sensing neural networks) for manifesting thoughts and Consciousness is the enrgyless "soul". Finally, consciousness is normal states if the awareness of the Minds collective thoughts (electromagnetic waves of different amplitutes and frequencies interfeering). In short consciousness is aware of Mind affect.

• 
  Consciousness has an attribute of awareness and zero energy. It is an atomic axiomatic Entity. (Ec)

• 
  Energy is discrete and extant eternally. Its attribute is that of amplitude and frequency. It is called an Electromagnetic Entity (Ee)

• 
  Freewill is another energyless entity. Its attributes are zero energy AND is an Operator which can be employed by Ce, and / or by Ce AND Ee

• 
  Semantics: Ideas with attribute of zero energy AND semantics. Thus, thoughts are semantics manifested in Mind when accompanied by attribute of Ee.

• 
  There exists no Time. Pl., see ( http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Time/Time.htm )

• 
  There exists no Space. (really require a long proof. Pl., see http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Space/space.html
  This is a verbal explanation and the Mathematical proof is too intricate and many links are required to comprehend it's sanity many of which requre redefinition of existing concepts of time, energy, consciousness using Fourier series and a (new) Logic whose basis is the "new" axioms..

Proof:

Using above axioms symbology.

Kindly ignore words like Reincarnation as it belittles the proof by virtue of existing unproven Beliefs. If it helps, I might add that I am an "Aetheist of sorts" and Yet have proven the existence of a sentient being, which is popularly called god / God/ Whatever. I am unware as to which category I belong and honestly I do not wish to be "categorised" into any "---ist" or "--ism" as is implicated when capatilism and communism and Aetheist, and Agnotic et.

Content: http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Reincarnate/reincarnate.html

Q.E.D

Case B: If Consciousness is energyless then it exists even in the lack of enrgy presence. Thisw has to be otherwise Universe could not have been extant when no observers existed, which means energy itself is created upon the realization of consciousness. Only a "god" can do this !
Thanks.
nk

 

[quantumcarl]

I think the act of observation may actually be considered non-physical where the observer is required to be physical to perform that act.

Conversely, however, during the act of observation, what is being observed must exhibit all the traits of being physical (to match the observer's conditional, physical bias)... However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not.

There remains only the assumption, based on experience, that the object of the observations remains in the state in which it was observed. And it has been demonstrated over and over that making assumptions is usually a mistake.

 

[Rade]

...However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not. There remains only the assumption, based on experience, that the object of the observations remains in the state in which it was observed. And it has been demonstrated over and over that making assumptions is usually a mistake.

Neither the "object" nor that which "observes" the object remain in the same state over time, change is the only constant. My question is whether or not the "object" can observe itself ?

 

[quantumcarl]

Neither the "object" nor that which "observes" the object remain in the same state over time, change is the only constant. My question is whether or not the "object" can observe itself ?

Observation takes place only by the use of the mechanisms and functioning stuctures of a neural network. Observation includes the utilization of the peripheral organs of that neural network, as far as is known. Nothing that takes place outside of a neural network can be termed as "observation". For instance, a video camera does not "observe"... it "records". Then the observer interviens and makes observations of what has been recorded.

In a complex neural network such as exists in the whale, humans and other animals it has been noted that some of these species are able to maintain a state of self-contemplation... or, as you put it, "observing itself".

 

[Rader]

Observation takes place only by the use of the mechanisms and functioning stuctures of a neural network. Observation includes the utilization of the peripheral organs of that neural network, as far as is known. Nothing that takes place outside of a neural network can be termed as "observation". For instance, a video camera does not "observe"... it "records". Then the observer interviens and makes observations of what has been recorded.

In a complex neural network such as exists in the whale, humans and other animals it has been noted that some of these species are able to maintain a state of self-contemplation... or, as you put it, "observing itself".

So then was the HUP a valid principle say 10BY<BC? Where was the neural network? I do not think it is too difficult to see that something is drastically wrong with our concepts. Either the HUP is incorrect and there is no evidence of it or we have to redefine what the observer is.

I think the act of observation may actually be considered non-physical where the observer is required to be physical to perform that act.

Conversely, however, during the act of observation, what is being observed must exhibit all the traits of being physical (to match the observer's conditional, physical bias)... However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not.

Not sure exactly what you mean? Is what you mean that, the observer is not physical but invents the physical world they way it assumes it exists?
Pardon me but some of these statements can have a whole bunch of different meanings. From your post it seems that you assume that only brains and observers have neural networks, so could you answer my first question.