Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

  • Thread starter Thread starter M. Gaspar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the universe can be considered conscious or alive, with participants debating the definitions of life and consciousness. Some argue that if humans are conscious and part of the universe, then the universe must also possess some form of consciousness. Others contend that consciousness and life should be reserved for living organisms, emphasizing that the universe is a collection of matter that cannot be classified as alive or dead. The conversation also touches on concepts like Quantum Decoherence and the relationship between order and disorder in the universe, suggesting that while the universe exhibits both coherence and chaos, it cannot be deemed conscious without a clear definition of awareness. Ultimately, the debate reflects the complexity of defining consciousness and life in relation to the universe as a whole.
  • #151
MajinVegeta...

No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.

Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...

Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.

If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".

This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.

Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.

I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.

Nonetheless, I will persist.

For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.

The Universe is INANIMATE?? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?

I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!

As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you. :wink:
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #152
Mentat..(God: I wish I could lift quotes like the rest of you. Can't find how on faq.)

Oh, just use "
" at the beginning of the part you want to quote then "/quote"(i removed the brakets because I quoted myself, but when you're quoting, use brackets) after the last part you want to quote. Or, you could just press the "quote" button on the post you want to quote. see! nothing to it!

side note: if you want something bold, for example, just write [b(don't want to bold anything here, so I had only one braket)
before the word(s) and [/b] at the end of what you're "bolding" :wink:
 
  • #153


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.

Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...

Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.

If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".

This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.

Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.

I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.

Nonetheless, I will persist.

For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.

The Universe is INANIMATE?? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?

I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!

As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you. :wink:

heh, when you put it that way, you do have a point. How do you apply theoretical physics to this?
Mentat said that the rocks could be considered alive. The universe isn't conscious, I don't believe, but it is alive. I rest my case for the time being, unitl some good argument pops up.
 
  • #154
MajinVegeta...

We don't have to go to "theoretical physics" we can stick with Newtonian as a PARALLEL to what MIGHT be going on in the "realm" of consciousness.

I speculate that there is a force in the "realm" of consciousness that CORRESPONDS to gravity...and that consciousness ACCRETES.

As to whether or not the Universe is conscious, I find it amusing that you can concede that it is "alive" but can't go so far as to think that It is "conscious".

I need time to regroup. However, trust me, another "good arguement" will "pop up".

Meanwhile, thanks for the technical info. Will try it when I'm feeling COURAGEOUS.
 
  • #155
Mentat...

You have no idea how much I HATE the "electron on circle" model I have posited above.

Still, at this moment, I cannot think of anything more illustrative of how consciousness may "inhabit" an entity...while a portion of it "reaches out" BEYOND the Entity...still dependent on the Entity to accrete more consciousness (EVOLVE).

Please "see" the "circle" as a "dynamic electric charge" or something. Honestly, I'm at a loss...but don't write me off just yet.
 
  • #156


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Mentat...re last post to MajinVegeta: that rocks may have "rock consciousness" is part and parcel of the discussion of whether the Universe Itself is conscious.

I didn't say that rocks had any kind of conciousness. I was, in fact, saying quite the opposite.

Let's say that an evolving system of "accreting quanta of consciousness" "found a home" a long time ago in an evolving system of matter, like, say, and early fish.

First, I need you to envision this "evolving system of accreting quanta of consciousness" as "looking like" a diagram of the orbit of an electron. This means, a circle with a glob on one place on it. The glob is the consciousness of the fish. The rest of the circle is the EXTENDED consciousness of the fish.

Within the fish brain, there is only so much capacity to process stimuli, remember, learn, etc...thereby a fish is only able to contribute to a limited degree to the evolution of its own consciousness. Nonetheless, it probably learns and remembers a few things and, in doing so, its consciousness evolves by that much.

Thus, the glob AND the circle it is on (remember the DIAGRAM...not a real object) -- or, in other words, the fish consciousness and its extended consciousness -- evolves a bit by the time its "host" dies.

Bear with me, Mentat...it gets grizzly...

Now, this dynamic, coherent system (the glob and its circle) has accreted more quanta of consciousness and now "goes shopping" for another host. (Actually, I speculate that natural forces of affinity attract a system of consciousness into its next host..for the function of, hopefully, accreting more consciousness...i.e., evolving.)

Be that as it may (or may not): eons pass. the glob has long since graduated from fishdom, progressing upward through the "consciousness food chain" to the grizzly bear! It's still a glob, only more complex, processing info in a bear-like fashion, and proceeding to evolve.

However, the physical system of the bear brain does not allow for the complexity of thought that say, you or I, may enjoy and employ. When the bear dies, its consciousness (glob and circle) will seek another "fit".

Our consciousness has evolved from monkey consciousness. Size per se is not a factor. Processing capacity is. Now, I have no idea what the consciousness of a whale is like (they may be processing/accreting a lot more than we think) but if indeed they are "less conscious than we are" its because of the complexity thing.

All of this is based on the idea that there is a quantum of consciousness. I really doubt this. Also, if there was one, then why can't we detect it within our brains, as it must be pretty advanced by now?

I am happy to have found this Forum because, apparently, I am COMPLETELY UNABLE to COMMUNICATE my own SPECULATIONS!
Thus, I welcome minds like yours and Heusdens that call me to task.

Please do so again at your earliest convenience.

This is an admirable quality, that you appreciate my counter-arguments, and use them to refine the way that you describe things. If only others could show such humility.
 
  • #157


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
No, I do not mean that "scattered thoughts" are unconscious thoughts and "focused thoughts" are conscious thoughts.

Actually, I was being FIGURATIVE! So let me explain it this way...

Let's say that, in the "material world", the Universe "wants" to make water. For this to happen, It needs to combine -- through Its NATURAL FORCES -- one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. When it does so, the dynamic, coherent system of CO2 could be said to be "focused" on performing the function of water.

If the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms did NOT come together, they would be "scattered".

This may be said to be a metaphor for what might be going on in the "realm" of consciousness. If "particles of consciousness" never came together through natural accretive forces, then consciousness (thought) would remain "scattered", performing no particular function.

Only when they accrete, say, into the consciousness of a fish, or a bear, or a star, do they perform a function and are "focused" on performing that function.

I have to admit that I am finding it very difficult to translate my speculations into models for the sake of discussion.

Nonetheless, I will persist.

For instance, I made a typo in the posting you referenced. I did NOT mean to say "light matter"; I mean to say " LIKE matter" with regard to the accretion process. Thus, your response is not on point to what I was TRYING to say.

The Universe is INANIMATE?? Or, an EARLY ORGANISM?

I say it is VERY ANIMATE and an ORGANISM of the GREATEST COMPLEXITY!

As I have maintained before: The Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

If that ain't livin', I don't know what is! And neither do you. :wink:

The universe is not responsive to it's parts! It's parts are responsive to each other - and in a highly chaotic manner, mind you.
 
  • #158


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You have no idea how much I HATE the "electron on circle" model I have posited above.

Still, at this moment, I cannot think of anything more illustrative of how consciousness may "inhabit" an entity...while a portion of it "reaches out" BEYOND the Entity...still dependent on the Entity to accrete more consciousness (EVOLVE).

Please "see" the "circle" as a "dynamic electric charge" or something. Honestly, I'm at a loss...but don't write me off just yet.

OK. And yet, I don't see how you can think that the quantum of consciousness can only be passed on when an organism dies.
 
  • #159
Mentat...

I CANNOT AS YET CAPTURE QUOTES!

I did what MajinVegeta said THREE DIFFERENT WAYS.

First, I hit the "quote" button above
and a window opens up
on the upper lefthand corner that allows me to type in words...but THAT can't be it. I can't believe everyone RETYPES those extended quotes.

So then I just typed
and then tried to highlight something below and then do the /quote at the end of it (per MV) but that didn't work either.

Then I tried to type
in front of the paragraph in the actual post. Nothing.

Please, someone, be very specific in the steps I need to take to capture quotes.

Meanwhile, I know how to work with the fonts but I don't have a clue what the boxes under those buttons do.

Was I supposed to have been BORN with this knowledge?

Meanwhile, Mentat... what do YOU mean when YOU say "quantum of consciousness"?
 
  • #160
Okay, detailed steps:

If you wish to seperately quote portions of a quote, press the "quote" button on each corner of the post. Then,
Put "
" right before what you want to quote. then, put /quote (with brackets before and after /quote) at the very end of what you wish to quote.
example:
yadda yadda bla bla [/quote

note: in this example, I have (as I repeatedly pointed out, and want to make very clear) left out one braket, other wise you won't be able to see the html.

Anyhow, the case (i.e., capital, lower case) is irrelavent. Remember, if everyone else can do it, so can you!



Then I tried to type "quote" in front of the paragraph in the actual post. Nothing.

At the end of the part you want to quote, type "
". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.

Meanwhile, I know how to work with the fonts but I don't have a clue what the boxes under those buttons do
What buttons are you referring to ?
 
  • #161
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Okay, detailed steps:

If you wish to seperately quote portions of a quote, press the "quote" button on each corner of the post. Then,
Put "

I see, and now I insert MY response via the "Edit" button. Let's see if this works.

At the end of the part you want to quote, type "
". Remember that it always has to have brackets. the "/" indicates something like "until here" in html.


What buttons are you referring to ?
[/QUOTE]
 
  • #162
As you see above MV...

I could only capture your entire posting PLUS I could not respond "outside of" your quote...but "inside", as you see.

Next, I tried to isolate one portion of your posting by putting a " where I wanted to start both BEFORE and AFTER hitting quote button. Doing it BEFORE yeilded nothing. There was no AFTER because it immediately captured your entire quote.

Wasting postings on this thread -- and boring others emmensely -- is probably not what I should be doing. Shall we waste two more on this, or not?
 
  • #163
Mentat...

Originally posted by Mentat
The universe is not responsive to it's parts! It's parts are responsive to each other - and in a highly chaotic manner, mind you.

Mentat: I am sure that if one were able to observe the electrical impulses of your brain, say, when you were posting your last response to me above, you would say that it looked "highly chaotic".

However, if one looks at the RESULTS one sees that there must have been SOME order to it, in that you were able (1) read my posting, (2) process its contents, (3) formulate a response and (4) post it.

So, my first point is that something may APPEAR chaotic to our eyes even though something very COHERENT is going on.

But even if I conceded (which I do not) that the Universe is 99% DISORDER, let's take a look at the human body. We have within each of us a chemical and electrical communications systems. Our parts are talking to each other all the time. When we get depressed, our brains COMMUNICATE this to all of our parts. When a part gets hurt, it COMMUNICATES this to our brain.

I am a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of my parts...maybe not consciously -- which, for me, is an alternate use of the word conscious meaning MINDFUL...if you can get the distinction. (We could say more about UNsconscious consciousness if we must.)

Meanwhile, look at the coherent complexity of the dynamic system that is the human body...or that of a galaxy...or that of the Universe as a whole. Of course, that's what we're TRYING to do -- wrap our minds around the Universe, so to speak -- with varying degrees of success.

Meanwhile, please respond to my question: what do YOU mean when you use the term "quantum of consciousness"?
 
  • #164
Forgive my not having been able to answer before. I only get on-line for one hour per day, so I probably got off-line before you (M. Gaspar) ever posted those last couple of posts.

Anyway, M. Gaspar, look at the bottom-right part of this post. Look for the icon that says "quote". If you click on that, you will have captured everything that I say in this post, within a "quote box". Also, if you type the following: quote (withing brackets) and /quote (also within brackets), then whatever you type in between them will appear in a quote box.
 
  • #165


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Mentat: I am sure that if one were able to observe the electrical impulses of your brain, say, when you were posting your last response to me above, you would say that it looked "highly chaotic".

No, the firing of neurons is orderly, otherwise the thought would not be orderly. This is what distinguishes dreams from conscious thoughts, dreams are so "out there" because they are based on chaotic firings of neurons, and nearly random connections of syanpses.

So, my first point is that something may APPEAR chaotic to our eyes even though something very COHERENT is going on.

This may be so. And yet, the opposite is true, when it comes to the universe, which is a point that you didn't want to accept. The universe is trying to attain greater disorder, and the "COHERENT chunks" are just by-products, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

But even if I conceded (which I do not) that the Universe is 99% DISORDER, let's take a look at the human body. We have within each of us a chemical and electrical communications systems. Our parts are talking to each other all the time. When we get depressed, our brains COMMUNICATE this to all of our parts. When a part gets hurt, it COMMUNICATES this to our brain.

I am a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of my parts...maybe not consciously -- which, for me, is an alternate use of the word conscious meaning MINDFUL...if you can get the distinction. (We could say more about UNsconscious consciousness if we must.)

And we must, because "mindful" and "conscious" are exactly synonymous.

Meanwhile, please respond to my question: what do YOU mean when you use the term "quantum of consciousness"?

I mean the hypothetical quantum that you have spoken of in your illustration. I don't believe that it exists, but I'm asking you questions about "it" to see if it's even a reasonable idea.
 
  • #166


Originally posted by Mentat
No, the firing of neurons is orderly, otherwise the thought would not be orderly. This is what distinguishes dreams from conscious thoughts, dreams are so "out there" because they are based on chaotic firings of neurons, and nearly random connections of syanpses.



The firing of neurons may, indeed, be "orderly" in that they fire in specific sequences to retrieve a memory or advance a thought. However, for one "looking down" on the firings throughout the neuronal network, the firings would not SEEM "orderly" because we really wouldn't understand the "connections" being made.




This may be so. And yet, the opposite is true, when it comes to the universe, which is a point that you didn't want to accept. The universe is trying to attain greater disorder, and the "COHERENT chunks" are just by-products, according to the second law of thermodynamics.



It literally ASTOUNDS me that you (and I suppose most others?) believe this is true. Please point to something that is DISordered, so I can get my bearings within your point of view.

Meanwhile, the second law of thermodynamics suggests that the entropy of a closed system increases over time. In a closed syste, an increase in entropy is accompanied by a decrease in energy available. And there's the rub! There is NOT a loss of energy in the closed system that is the Universe because of a law I like a lot better...that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Thus, a part of the Universe may SEEM to be falling into disorder...say, like when a star goes supernova...but that's because we are "witnessing" -- or only THINKING ABOUT -- one small snapshot of a process that may be sending "star stuff" into the Universe that will eventually be used to make something else!



And we must, because "mindful" and "conscious" are exactly synonymous.


Not in my lexicon. Consciousness is on a continuum. The consciousness of a grain of sand will be different than that of a tree, which will be different than that of you and me. There are also LEVELS of consciousness: a person dreaming still has a form of consciousness. There is still consciousness in UNconsciousness. And the subconscious another level of consciousnees, too.

Also, dreams are NOT totally "random firings" because they are orderly enough to form IMAGES and TELL STORIES to ourselves.



I mean the hypothetical quantum that you have spoken of in your illustration. I don't believe that it exists, but I'm asking you questions about "it" to see if it's even a reasonable idea.

You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN.
 
Last edited:
  • #167
OH MY GOD...

I STILL do not know how to use the quote & reply feature properly. Please note, Mentat, that I responded to YOUR responses WITHIN your response.

Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly!
 
Last edited:
  • #168


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I STILL do not know how to use the quote & reply feature properly. Please note, Mentat, that I responded to YOUR responses WITHIN your response.

Apparently, you're right: some systems ARE disorderly!
Gaspar just above the reply botton there is a "quote" button.
Just push on it ... a new frame opens containing the message of the other ... and start typing. ;-)

If you want to react on specific sentences just copy the whole message of the other, paste it into that frame and delete the sentence you don't need.
 
Last edited:
  • #169


Originally posted by pelastration
Gaspar just above the reply botton there is a "quote" button.
Just push on it ... a new frame opens containing the message of the other ... and start typing. ;-)

If you want to react on specific sentences just copy the whole message of the other, paste it into that frame and delete the sentence you don't need.
;-)

Now I will see if your quote looks different from my response.
 
  • #170
Pelastration...

Why is my ;-) showing? Or was that a typo on YOUR part which I mistook for something I needed to do to get the quote serparate from the response?

I know I'm a crackpot...but a dunderhead, too?
 
  • #171


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.


Not so much by accident, as by the fact that all things take the path of least resistance, which is why the universe is tending toward disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

However, if these little quanta of consciousness have any mass, then the more massive something is, the more aware it should be. However, this is not the case.
 
  • #172
Mentat...

I'm thinking that consciousness does NOT have "mass"...and the "accretion of consciousness" is not actually a "clustering together of a growing mass of consciousness particles"...but rather that, each "particle" of consciousness is more like an ADDED SITE to a complex NETWORK that EXTENDS BEYOND the being (or rock) it is "hooked up" to.

I need time to think about how to express this better...tho I'm tempted to try again right now:

Think about the brain. It imprints memories and information NOT in one specific place or another. No. Instead, it engages many of its neurons to imprint a memory, which, in turn, get "fired again" when one remembers the specific memory.

The more neurons, the better. And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain. It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.
 
  • #173


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm thinking that consciousness does NOT have "mass"...and the "accretion of consciousness" is not actually a "clustering together of a growing mass of consciousness particles"...but rather that, each "particle" of consciousness is more like an ADDED SITE to a complex NETWORK that EXTENDS BEYOND the being (or rock) it is "hooked up" to.

I need time to think about how to express this better...tho I'm tempted to try again right now:

Think about the brain. It imprints memories and information NOT in one specific place or another. No. Instead, it engages many of its neurons to imprint a memory, which, in turn, get "fired again" when one remembers the specific memory.

The more neurons, the better. And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain. It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.

Like I explained in the thread 'Everything came from nothing' we have to describe a high level property of matter and material forms, like consciousness on a specific level. We are aware we think with our brain, and our consciouss being is based on the material properties of our brain. Yet it is not much use to describe such high order phenomena as consciousness, in terms of the matter that forms the brain.
Large huuricanes also consists of moving air molecules. But the property of a hurricane can not be found just by stuyding the properties of individual air molecules. Without other knowledge, like that the flow of air is caused by differences of pressure in the atmosphere, and that these differences in air pressure are caused by heating and cooling of air, we would not be able to explain hurricanes.
 
  • #174


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

Better post this before I get disconnected AGAIN.

Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.
 
  • #175


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
The more neurons, the better.

Then why is consciousness not restricted to only the things that actually have neurons?

And yet, an increase in what we we learn or remember or think does NOT increase the MASS of our brain.

I know this. This is why I asked about the Quanta of Consciousness, that you seemed to think were scattered but could "clump together".

It's the PROCESS that's important...how the brain is set up to work.

Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not.
 
  • #176


Originally posted by Mentat

Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not. [/B]

Like you know.

I say the Universe IS set up that way!


Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.
 
  • #177


Originally posted by heusdens
Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.

Actually, you just made my point: consciousness didn't SUDDENLY arise. It has always been part of the Universe. However, like matter -- baryonic matter -- it needed to EVOLVE.

I've decided to say more on the Everything from Nothing thread.
 
  • #178


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Like you know.

I say the Universe IS set up that way!


Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.

M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.

One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.
Additionally, this criteria would exclude life forms created by design. Surely, if we had been created by an intelligent God, it would not follow that we were any less alive?

Following are some of the applications that authors draw from this definition:

Note that a single human being does not satisfy the above sufficient condition to be considered living, but it is made up of cells some of which do satisfy it. A male—female pair would collectively be a system capable of self-reproduction, and so this system would satisfy the sufficient condition. In any biosphere we can imagine, some systems contained therein would satisfy it . . .

A virus satisfies the above sufficient condition, and so we consider it a living organism . . .

Automobiles, for example, must be considered alive since they contain a great deal of information, and they can self-reproduce in the sense that there are human mechanics who can make a copy of the automobile. These mechanics are to automobiles what a living cell’s biochemical machinery is to a virus. The form of automobiles in the environment is preserved by natural selection: there is a fierce struggle for existence going on between various "races" of automobiles! In America, Japanese automobiles are competing with native American automobiles for scarce resources—money paid to the manufacturer—that will result in either more American or more Japanese automobiles being built!

At least the authors are applying their definition consistently. But in doing so, they have shown that it cannot handle the easy examples. For surely a single human being is an easy example of something that is alive, and an automobile is an easy example of something that is not alive. A virus, on the other hand, is a difficult example that is considered a living thing by some biologists but not by others; it is a borderline case at best.

To summarize, the Barrow/Tipler definition of life fails two of the criteria we proposed at the start: it doesn’t handle the easy cases, and it isn’t simple (they have to add special clauses to handle cases like mules and human reproduction).

I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria
 
  • #179


Originally posted by MajinVegeta
M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.

One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.


I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria


I suppose, now and again, I make statements as if I "know"...but, actually, I'm fully aware that I'm only SPECULATING...so your point is well taken.

Still, when someone says definitively that the Universe is not "set up" to "think"...it begs the response "Like you know."

I suspect that our biological definition of life might not be as COMPREHENSIVE as some of us would like to believe.

For instance, if it is "true" that the Universe keeps "giving birth" to ITSELF...this would satisfy MY definition of "living".

That we cannot "know" for certain that the Universe is conscious (or not) does not mean we cannot "take the case" that It is and try to "make the case" that It is within this Forum.

Ideas evolve.
 
  • #180
I was telling my sister about this discussion, and she insisted there was no point in discussing something we couldn't give a definite answer to.

Anyway, how does the universe give birth to itself? Well, then again, I could see your point. Quantum fluctuations actually caused the universe as we know it to come into exitence. So, it sort of did, give birth to itself. But, as I stated before (in "Everything came from Nothing") that the universe seems to have no goal in its evolution.
On the other hand, neither do we. We live, and we die. The universe is born, then it collapses into a singularity(the Big Crunch) and dies. And it happens all over again; because black holes/singularities evaporate. so its like a cycle. Does it have a purpose?
 
  • #181
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Anyway, how does the universe give birth to itself? Well, then again, I could see your point. Quantum fluctuations actually caused the universe as we know it to come into existence. So, it sort of did, give birth to itself.

This is stated in a weird way, which makes it quite incomprohensible, and the reasoning is wrong. There is no point in discussing the 'birth' of the universe, as there was no such 'birth'.
If you state that quantum fluctuations caused the birth of the universe, then in other words those quantum fluctuations happened outside time and space? This really makes no sense.
Perhaps a good idea for a concept that uses quantum fluctuations and a scalar field to explain this, is in the theory of eternal inflation.
 
  • #182
Of course time had to exist in order for the BB to occur. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Space had to exist as well, for strings to exist.
what's the theory of eternal inflation?
 
  • #183


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

The reasoning is wrong here, in that you assume because of the material process going on in the universe, that amongst others has formed us out of lifeless matter, in the course of a very long material process, therefore the process (universe) needs to be called consciouss too. This conclusion has no basis in reality, but is nothing but a misconception, since the reasoning is wrong.

If a painting is beautifull, and was made out of materials as paint using a paint brush and handled by a painter, do we conclude then (on the basis that the painting is beautifull) that the painting process, the paint, paint brush or painter therefore must be beautifull too?
 
  • #184
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea:[/color] that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.
I can now see that you've obtained your B.S. degree here and, that what you're preaching is the "medium phase" of acceptance between the material world and a spiritual world, and yet if you don't follow through with "its conclusion," all you're really doing is sitting on the fence.

In which case we can either have three "crackpot realities" or, one "consolidated reality."

Now why does this bring to mind the notion of the Holy Trinity? Where the one God is perceived as three, and the three Gods are perceived as one, when in fact it's really only "One God" to begin with. Whereas the idea of three Gods is perceived as insane, and the idea of One God reflects reality as a whole.
 
  • #185
Iacchus...

Actually, if I didn't have to use the term "God" ever again, I would be quite content...because I see the common concept of "God" as an EXTRANEOUS IDEA!

I am not "on the fence". I am solidly on the side of the fence that sees the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

I do NOT see the Universe as something that was "created by" the Great Outsider who has a "Plan" for everything and who knows how it's all going to turn out.

That, to me, is the fairy tail version of the cosmos, born of primitive minds that love their stories!

For me, it is enough that the Universe is an eternal Entity of energy that's EVOLVING.

And I don't think it needs to be "worshipped"...only appreciated .

Now, you have either read this post carefully and -- because you UNDERSTAND what I have said -- you want to rescind your last post to me OR...you still don't get that I don't "believe in God": I believe in the living Entity that is the Universe.

I guess that makes me an IDEALISTIC MATERIALIST!
 
  • #186
Heaven and Hell

Do you or don't you believe in God? If you understood that in fact there was an afterlife, as I do--yeah right!--then I don't think you would be holding the silly notion of a "conscious entity" without ascribing its proper title, i.e., "God." Indeed, you would take the whole thing far more personally.

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1596" ...

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1244&perpage=15&pagenumber=3" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by megashawn
If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part.
The thing of it is is that you have to separate people according to what they believe, otherwise there would be nothing but constant antagonism in the afterlife, in which case it's necessary for hell to exist if only for this reason. Whereas everyone comes into what's called their "ruling love" (that which they love most), which is what guides them and detemines their state of existence in the afterlife.

While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1072" ...

"Man after death is his own love or his own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold experience. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his like, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves." ~ http://www.swedenborg.com/" , Heaven and Hell
This is a very good book by the way, and it's highly recommended.

Originally posted by quantumcarl
That's all very interesting. Hard to prove, mind you!
If in fact heaven and hell does exist, then it only makes sense that it be done in accord with "ruling love." For then it's possible for an interaction (influx) to exist between these states and the current state of reality in the natural world, without out none becoming the wiser of it. Whereas much as everything gets "broken down" into its essential elements in nature, the same could be applied in the spiritual sense, thus giving it a sense of being organic in makeup ... by which everything is allowed to proceed as "normal" without anyone getting too alarmed about it.

Although from time to time the two realities do get breeched, with all sorts of unpredictable results, much of which can be judged as unhealthy for the "sanity" of the respective individuals involved.

Been there and done that!

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #187
I am not "on the fence". I am solidly on the side of the fence that sees the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.
 
  • #188
MV

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.

As I just said on another thread...

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory...which precedes testing.

AND...some things can only be "known" by their "effects."

If you do not like to speculate about whether the Universe is conscious or not simply because we can't "prove" or "disprove" it, then why do I keep meeting you here?

I say there IS a way to DISCERN the consciousnes of the Universe...by It's EFFECT(S)...and will make a case for this in a future posting.
 
  • #189


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you or don't you believe in God? If you understood that in fact there was an afterlife, as I do--yeah right!--then I don't think you would be holding the silly notion of a "conscious entity" without ascribing its proper title, i.e., "God." Indeed, you would take the whole thing far more personally.


(WHY IS MY RESPONSE BOLD?)

I cannot believe that, after my last posting, you are still asking me whether I believe in "God"!

No, I do NOT believe in the "God" as described by most...as the Great Outsider or the Big Ringmaster in the Sky!

I see the Universe as a physical/mental/and, yes, SPIRITUAL Being that's EVOLVING with -- and through -- the rest of us.

Do I believe that the dynamic, coherent system of energy that is my consciousness (and spirit?) will continue on AFTER the the vehicle it has been inhabiting goes to the recylcing bin...to await ANOTHER vehicle, or to "float around" doing whatever it is that disembodied coherent systems of consciousness do?

Yes!

As to Heaven and Hell...I believe these are FUNDAMENTALLY STATES OF MIND . I do NOT believe that the Great Outsider "judges" us, then sends us to either eternal damnation or bliss.

I believe, that at the moment of "death", our "spirit" judges ITSELF...by experiencing every emotional effect on every being we have ever effected, directly or indirectly, through our ACTIONS. When I say "experience", I mean REALLY FEEL every emotion we have ever caused in each particular lifetime.

Thus, the very EXPERIENCING of our EFFECT is what constitutes a "Heaven" or "Hell".

Think about Hitler: His spirit is probably STILL PROCESSING the pain he caused directly and indirectly.

The Great Outsider is EXTRANEOUS to this PROCESS...which is a NATURAL FUNCTION of the Universe.

Are we clear now about where I stand?
 
Last edited:
  • #190


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
As I just said on another thread...

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory...which precedes testing.

As I said in the same thread, you are wrong about this chain. Theory is preceded by rigorous testing, not the other way around. You are confusing theory and hypothesis.

AND...some things can only be "known" by their "effects."

Sure, but there is no "effect" that shows any evidence, whatsoever, that the universe is conscious of anything.

If you do not like to speculate about whether the Universe is conscious or not simply because we can't "prove" or "disprove" it, then why do I keep meeting you here?

Don't you realize your error? You are trying to prove a speculation. You can do that in Philosophy. However, you are trying to make your philosophy compatible with science. This you cannot do, until you rigorously test, and make accurate predictions with, your hypothesis.

I say there IS a way to DISCERN the consciousnes of the Universe...by It's EFFECT(S)...and will make a case for this in a future posting.

I await these future postings, as I cannot see any evidence of the universe's being conscious.
 
  • #191


Originally posted by Mentat


Sure, but there is no "effect" that shows any evidence, whatsoever, that the universe is conscious of anything.

I await these future postings, as I cannot see any evidence of the universe's being conscious. [/B]


Actually, Mentat, you may be seeing "evidence" all the time...but just not recognizing it as such.

Meanwhile, you have nudged me into a GREAT DIRECTION ...and now I am PROCESSING...hoping to come back with something that satisfies more rigorous minds than mine.
 
  • #192
M. Gaspar:
We cannot in any way notice the effects that you speak of. Besides, I guess it is appropriate to say that the definition of life is relative. For one, we only base the criteria for life according to what we have observed on earth. Consequently, we cannot infer whether or not the universe is conscious without criteria upon which to base our conclusion on.
 
  • #193
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
M. Gaspar:
We cannot in any way notice the effects that you speak of. Besides, I guess it is appropriate to say that the definition of life is relative. For one, we only base the criteria for life according to what we have observed on earth. Consequently, we cannot infer whether or not the universe is conscious without criteria upon which to base our conclusion on.

I have not, as yet, pointed to any effects...so how can you say that we cannot in any way notice them?
 
  • #194
Then do tell the effects.
 
  • #195
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.

I don't know to what "proper criteria" you refer...but I will say that ideas EVOLVE...like everything else. Thus, present definitions might be expanded.

As to "reliable evidence"...I haven't presented ANY "evidence" at all ...as yet.

Finally (but not really), your contention that certain questions "cannot be answered" might be true. However, sometimes a statement such as that turns out to be a little premature.

There was a time when we had "no way of knowing" whether atoms existed...let alone elementary particles.

We, at present, have "no way of knowing" whether "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" exist..as they are only predicted by their EFFECT.

For the sake of exploration -- or even conversation -- let us not jump to conclusions that curse the quest.
 
Last edited:
  • #196
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Then do tell the effects.

In due time.
 
  • #197


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, Mentat, you may be seeing "evidence" all the time...but just not recognizing it as such.

Meanwhile, you have nudged me into a GREAT DIRECTION ...and now I am PROCESSING...hoping to come back with something that satisfies more rigorous minds than mine.

Flattery. Your mind is every bit as rigorous as mine. I just happen to disagree with you, which is a quality that you don't have :wink:.
 
  • #198
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
In due time.

Are you working on your own hypothesis?
 
  • #199
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Of course time had to exist in order for the BB to occur. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Space had to exist as well, for strings to exist.
what's the theory of eternal inflation?

The theory of inflation is a further developed inflation theory.
Inflation theory initially explained what happened at the begin of the big bang, a rapid (exponentially) expansion of space, which flattens out all the inhomogenities, and causes the visible universe to be so homogenous as it looks now.
The theory of eternal inflation, just states that inflation can reproduce itself, and therefore this scenario doesn't need to have a beginning in time.

The theory of inflation is somewhat complex, it is in fact field dynamics. In inflation theory the material reality is brought back to one or more sclarar fields, that change in time/space. Such changes, can built up in small regions to such an extend that inflation (the rapid expansion of space) occurs, causing the effect of a big bang.

The theory of eternal inflation is developed by Andrei Linde. So far it is a good candidate for describing the beginning of the universe, and solves a number of difficulties in the current big bang theory (why is space so flat, why is the universe so homogeneous, why is the universe so large, what caused galaxy formation, etc).

For more info search in google with the following key words:
"inflation" "eternal" "andrei linde"
 
  • #200
Inflation for beginners

Inflation for Beginners

JOHN GRIBBIN

INFLATION has become a cosmological buzzword in the 1990s. No self-respecting theory of the Universe is complete without a reference to inflation -- and at the same time there is now a bewildering variety of different versions of inflation to choose from. Clearly, what's needed is a beginner's guide to inflation, where newcomers to cosmology can find out just what this exciting development is all about. This is it -- new readers start here.

The reason why something like inflation was needed in cosmology was highlighted by discussions of two key problems in the 1970s. The first of these is the horizon problem -- the puzzle that the Universe looks the same on opposite sides of the sky (opposite horizons) even though there has not been time since the Big Bang for light (or anything else) to travel across the Universe and back. So how do the opposite horizons "know" how to keep in step with each other? The second puzzle is called the flatness problem This is the puzzle that the spacetime of the Universe is very nearly flat, which means that the Universe sits just on the dividing line between eternal expansion and eventual recollapse.

The flatness problem can be understood in terms of the density of the Universe. The density parameter is a measure of the amount of gravitating material in the Universe, usually denoted by the Greek letter omega (O), and also known as the flatness parameter. It is defined in such a way that if spacetime is exactly flat then O = 1. Before the development of the idea of inflation, one of the great puzzles in cosmology was the fact that the actual density of the Universe today is very close to this critical value -- certainly within a factor of 10. This is curious because as the Universe expands away from the Big Bang the expansion will push the density parameter away from the critical value.

If the Universe starts out with the parameter less than one, O gets smaller as the Universe ages, while if it starts out bigger than one O gets bigger as the Universe ages. The fact that O is between 0.1 and 1 today means that in the first second of the Big Bang it was precisely 1 to within 1 part in 1060). This makes the value of the density parameter in the beginning one of the most precisely determined numbers in all of science, and the natural inference is that the value is, and always has been, exactly 1. One important implication of this is that there must be a large amount of dark matter in the Universe. Another is that the Universe was made flat by inflation.

Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second. This process would smooth out spacetime to make the Universe flat, and would also resolve the horizon problem by taking regions of space that were once close enough to have got to know each other well and spreading them far apart, on opposite sides of the visible Universe today.

Inflation became established as the standard model of the very early Universe in the 1980s. It achieved this success not only because it resolves many puzzles about the nature of the Universe, but because it did so using the grand unified theories (GUTs) and understanding of quantum theory developed by particle physicists completely independently of any cosmological studies. These theories of the particle world had been developed with no thought that they might be applied in cosmology (they were in no sense "designed" to tackle all the problems they turned out to solve), and their success in this area suggested to many people that they must be telling us something of fundamental importance about the Universe.

The marriage of particle physics (the study of the very small) and cosmology (the study of the very large) seems to provide an explanation of how the Universe began, and how it got to be the way it is. Inflation is therefore regarded as the most important development in cosmological thinking since the discovery that the Universe is expanding first suggested that it began in a Big Bang.

Taken at face value, the observed expansion of the Universe implies that it was born out of a singularity, a point of infinite density, some 15 billion years ago (cosmologists still disagree about exactly how old the Universe is, but the exact age doesn't affect the argument). Quantum physics tells us that it is meaningless to talk in quite such extreme terms, and that instead we should consider the expansion as having started from a region no bigger across than the so-called Planck length (10-35m), when the density was not infinite but "only" some 1094 grams per cubic centimetre. These are the absolute limits on size and density allowed by quantum physics.

On that picture, the first puzzle is how anything that dense could ever expand -- it would have an enormously strong gravitational field, turning it into a black hole and snuffing it out of existence (back into the singularity) as soon as it was born. But it turns out that inflation can prevent this happening, while quantum physics allows the entire Universe to appear, in this supercompact form, out of nothing at all, as a cosmic free lunch. The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, of the City University in New York, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.

Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat , then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever. If you find this mind-blowing, you are in good company. George Gamow told in his book My World Line (Viking, New York, reprinted 1970) how he was having a conversation with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues had pointed out to him that according to Einstein's equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, because its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy. "Einstein stopped in his tracks," says Gamow, "and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down".

Unfortunately, if a quantum bubble (about as big as the Planck length) containing all the mass-energy of the Universe (or even a star) did appear out of nothing at all, its intense gravitational field would (unless something else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it into a singularity. So the free lunch Universe seemed at first like an irrelevant speculation -- but, as with the problems involving the extreme flatness of spacetime, and its appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy (most clearly indicated by the uniformity of the background radiation), the development of the inflationary scenario showed how to remove this difficulty and allow such a quantum fluctuation to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence.. All of these problems would be resolved if something gave the Universe a violent outward push (in effect, acting like antigravity) when it was still about a Planck length in size. Such a small region of space would be too tiny, initially, to contain irregularities, so it would start off homogeneous and isotropic. There would have been plenty of time for signals traveling at the speed of light to have criss-crossed the ridiculously tiny volume, so there is no horizon problem -- both sides of the embryonic universe are "aware" of each other. And spacetime itself gets flattened by the expansion, in much the same way that the wrinkly surface of a prune becomes a smooth, flat surface when the prune is placed in water and swells up. As in the standard Big Bang model, we can still think of the Universe as like the skin of an expanding balloon, but now we have to think of it as an absolutely enormous balloon that was hugely inflated during the first split second of its existence.

[to be continued]
 
Back
Top