Quantum Cosmology and the nature of Consciousness

[atanu]

This thread is linked closely to an earlier thread: An underlying mental world out there .

I however felt that the thoughts of Andrei Linde deserved a separate thread on its own.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1425656584247/universe-life-consciousness.pdf

The author says:

"...There remained one point which was hidden from us and which remained unexplained: the moment of creation of the universe as a whole. The mystery of creation of everything from nothing could seem to be too great to be considered scientifically.

With the development of inflationary cosmology the situation somewhat changed. The possibility that the universe eternally re-creates itself in all its possible forms does not necessarily resolves the problem of creation, but pushes it back to indefinite past. By doing so, the properties of our world become totally disentangled from the properties of the universe at the time when it was born (if there was such time at all). In other words, one may argue that the properties of our world do not represent the original design and cannot carry any message from the Creator. ..."​

Then he goes on to consider the possibilty that a physicist may create the Universe in a Laboratory. He questions:

"Does this mean that our universe was created by a physicist hacker? Does this mean that only physicists can read the message of God? .."​

In the final section 9 "Quantum Cosmology and nature of consciousness", he becomes sceptical and questions as below:

"A possibility described above represents an ultimate example of the arrogance of science. One may consider this possibility seriously, because it shows that there may be nothing beyond physics and technology in the act of creation of the universe. However, is it conceivable that our understanding of the universe is too simplistic? Is it possible that we are making a conceptual mistake at the moment when we are making an obvious assumption that the universe is real, and that it encompasses everything?"​

He avers

"Thus we see that by an investigation of the wave function of the universe as a whole one sometimes gets information which has no direct relevance to the observational data, e.g. that the universe does not evolve in time. In order to describe the universe as we see it one should divide the universe into several macroscopic pieces and calculate a conditional probability to observe it in a given state under an obvious condition that the observer and his measuring apparatus do exist. Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. Does this mean that an observer is simultaneously a creator?"​

Andrei Linde is a hardcore physics man. He uses physics and analytical logic to conclude that without conscious observation/s, the universe will not move. He further suggests:

"Is it not possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?...

.....Is it possible to introduce a “space of elements of consciousness,” and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?"​

I enjoyed reading the paper immensely. I invite physicist members to enjoy.

 

[The Hammer]

Reminds me to go back and read the book "Quantum Revelation:" by Paul Levy.

 

[atanu]

This thread is linked closely to an earlier thread: An underlying mental world out there .

I however felt that the thoughts of Andrei Linde deserved a separate thread on its own.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1425656584247/universe-life-consciousness.pdf

The author says:

"...There remained one point which was hidden from us and which remained unexplained: the moment of creation of the universe as a whole. The mystery of creation of everything from nothing could seem to be too great to be considered scientifically.

With the development of inflationary cosmology the situation somewhat changed. The possibility that the universe eternally re-creates itself in all its possible forms does not necessarily resolves the problem of creation, but pushes it back to indefinite past. By doing so, the properties of our world become totally disentangled from the properties of the universe at the time when it was born (if there was such time at all). In other words, one may argue that the properties of our world do not represent the original design and cannot carry any message from the Creator. ..."​

Then he goes on to consider the possibilty that a physicist may create the Universe in a Laboratory. He questions:

"Does this mean that our universe was created by a physicist hacker? Does this mean that only physicists can read the message of God? .."​

In the final section 9 "Quantum Cosmology and nature of consciousness", he becomes sceptical and questions as below:

"A possibility described above represents an ultimate example of the arrogance of science. One may consider this possibility seriously, because it shows that there may be nothing beyond physics and technology in the act of creation of the universe. However, is it conceivable that our understanding of the universe is too simplistic? Is it possible that we are making a conceptual mistake at the moment when we are making an obvious assumption that the universe is real, and that it encompasses everything?"​

He avers

"Thus we see that by an investigation of the wave function of the universe as a whole one sometimes gets information which has no direct relevance to the observational data, e.g. that the universe does not evolve in time. In order to describe the universe as we see it one should divide the universe into several macroscopic pieces and calculate a conditional probability to observe it in a given state under an obvious condition that the observer and his measuring apparatus do exist. Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. Does this mean that an observer is simultaneously a creator?"​

Andrei Linde is a hardcore physics man. He uses physics and analytical logic to conclude that without conscious observation/s, the universe will not move. He further suggests:

"Is it not possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?...

.....Is it possible to introduce a “space of elements of consciousness,” and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?"​

I enjoyed reading the paper immensely. I invite physicist members to enjoy.

In my view, in light of Vedantic Darshana, space-time sprouts in consciousness and is absorbed in consciousness. Consciousness is not in the same category as space-time, which is the the master container for the objects of consciousness. This is how I personally differ from author.

 

[shunyadragon]

This thread is linked closely to an earlier thread: An underlying mental world out there .

I however felt that the thoughts of Andrei Linde deserved a separate thread on its own.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1425656584247/universe-life-consciousness.pdf

The author says:

"...There remained one point which was hidden from us and which remained unexplained: the moment of creation of the universe as a whole. The mystery of creation of everything from nothing could seem to be too great to be considered scientifically.

With the development of inflationary cosmology the situation somewhat changed. The possibility that the universe eternally re-creates itself in all its possible forms does not necessarily resolves the problem of creation, but pushes it back to indefinite past. By doing so, the properties of our world become totally disentangled from the properties of the universe at the time when it was born (if there was such time at all). In other words, one may argue that the properties of our world do not represent the original design and cannot carry any message from the Creator. ..."​

Then he goes on to consider the possibilty that a physicist may create the Universe in a Laboratory. He questions:

"Does this mean that our universe was created by a physicist hacker? Does this mean that only physicists can read the message of God? .."​

In the final section 9 "Quantum Cosmology and nature of consciousness", he becomes sceptical and questions as below:

"A possibility described above represents an ultimate example of the arrogance of science. One may consider this possibility seriously, because it shows that there may be nothing beyond physics and technology in the act of creation of the universe. However, is it conceivable that our understanding of the universe is too simplistic? Is it possible that we are making a conceptual mistake at the moment when we are making an obvious assumption that the universe is real, and that it encompasses everything?"​

He avers

"Thus we see that by an investigation of the wave function of the universe as a whole one sometimes gets information which has no direct relevance to the observational data, e.g. that the universe does not evolve in time. In order to describe the universe as we see it one should divide the universe into several macroscopic pieces and calculate a conditional probability to observe it in a given state under an obvious condition that the observer and his measuring apparatus do exist. Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. Does this mean that an observer is simultaneously a creator?"​

Andrei Linde is a hardcore physics man. He uses physics and analytical logic to conclude that without conscious observation/s, the universe will not move. He further suggests:

"Is it not possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?...

.....Is it possible to introduce a “space of elements of consciousness,” and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?"​

I enjoyed reading the paper immensely. I invite physicist members to enjoy.

I will address this more, but the hypothetical possibilities described by many that consciousness has a direct relationship to the Quantum world do not cut it as far as science is concerned. It is too egocentrically anthropomorphic, hypothetical and conjecture to be real.

The reality is that the Quantum World underlies all of our physical existence, and our consciousness is a product of the evolution of life and we share this in common with many animals.

 

[Left Coast]

This thread is linked closely to an earlier thread: An underlying mental world out there .

I however felt that the thoughts of Andrei Linde deserved a separate thread on its own.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1425656584247/universe-life-consciousness.pdf

The author says:

"...There remained one point which was hidden from us and which remained unexplained: the moment of creation of the universe as a whole. The mystery of creation of everything from nothing could seem to be too great to be considered scientifically.

With the development of inflationary cosmology the situation somewhat changed. The possibility that the universe eternally re-creates itself in all its possible forms does not necessarily resolves the problem of creation, but pushes it back to indefinite past. By doing so, the properties of our world become totally disentangled from the properties of the universe at the time when it was born (if there was such time at all). In other words, one may argue that the properties of our world do not represent the original design and cannot carry any message from the Creator. ..."​

Then he goes on to consider the possibilty that a physicist may create the Universe in a Laboratory. He questions:

"Does this mean that our universe was created by a physicist hacker? Does this mean that only physicists can read the message of God? .."​

In the final section 9 "Quantum Cosmology and nature of consciousness", he becomes sceptical and questions as below:

"A possibility described above represents an ultimate example of the arrogance of science. One may consider this possibility seriously, because it shows that there may be nothing beyond physics and technology in the act of creation of the universe. However, is it conceivable that our understanding of the universe is too simplistic? Is it possible that we are making a conceptual mistake at the moment when we are making an obvious assumption that the universe is real, and that it encompasses everything?"​

He avers

"Thus we see that by an investigation of the wave function of the universe as a whole one sometimes gets information which has no direct relevance to the observational data, e.g. that the universe does not evolve in time. In order to describe the universe as we see it one should divide the universe into several macroscopic pieces and calculate a conditional probability to observe it in a given state under an obvious condition that the observer and his measuring apparatus do exist. Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. Does this mean that an observer is simultaneously a creator?"​

Andrei Linde is a hardcore physics man. He uses physics and analytical logic to conclude that without conscious observation/s, the universe will not move. He further suggests:

"Is it not possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?...

.....Is it possible to introduce a “space of elements of consciousness,” and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?"​

I enjoyed reading the paper immensely. I invite physicist members to enjoy.

I would be fascinated to read the peer reviewed paper if and when he investigates whether consciousness exists apart from matter. Thus far all data we have collected about consciousness indicates it is a function of living brains.

 

[atanu]

I would be fascinated to read the peer reviewed paper if and when he investigates whether consciousness exists apart from matter. Thus far all data we have collected about consciousness indicates it is a function of living brains.

Yes. So, he questions that too. What is 'life'?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes. So, he questions that too. What is 'life'?

Medically, I believe a brain is alive if it has some measurable function or electrical activity. I'm sure a physician or neuroscientist could explain it more technically.

 

[atanu]

Medically, I believe a brain is alive if it has some measurable function or electrical activity. I'm sure a physician or neuroscientist could explain it more technically.

Pardon me. I am afraid that we are not on same page. Professor Linde ends his paper with the following:

"It would probably be best then not to repeat old mistakes, but instead to forthrightly acknowledge that the problem of consciousness and the related problem of human life and death are not only unsolved, but at a fundamental level they are virtually completely unexamined. It is tempting to seek connections and analogies of some kind, even if they are shallow and superficial ones at first, in studying one more great problem - that of the birth, life, and death of the universe. It may conceivably become clear at some future time that these two problems are not so disparate as they might seem."

If you think you understand life-consciousness-death, then you should be able to give the mechanism or to create a living being in laboratory.

 

[Left Coast]

Pardon me. I am afraid that we are not on same page. Professor Linde ends his paper with the following:

"It would probably be best then not to repeat old mistakes, but instead to forthrightly acknowledge that the problem of consciousness and the related problem of human life and death are not only unsolved, but at a fundamental level they are virtually completely unexamined. It is tempting to seek connections and analogies of some kind, even if they are shallow and superficial ones at first, in studying one more great problem - that of the birth, life, and death of the universe. It may conceivably become clear at some future time that these two problems are not so disparate as they might seem."

If you think you understand life-consciousness-death, then you should be able to give the mechanism or to create a living being in laboratory.

Understanding is not binary. We can understand some things about a phenomenon without understanding everything about it.

If you find an example of consciousness that exists apart from a living brain, please let me know. Again, I would be genuinely interested in reading that peer reviewed paper.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. So, he questions that too. What is 'life'?

Life is a product of abiogenesis and evolution. So is consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you think you understand life-consciousness-death, then you should be able to give the mechanism or to create a living being in laboratory.

This is a terribly contrived and constructed 'argument from ignorance' argument, and actually not worth a response. Like if you do not know the color of God, you cannot know anything.

I would like to point out that what I know of the chemistry of abiogenesis, I believe it is likely that life from none life will happen in the near future.

 

[atanu]

Understanding is not binary. We can understand some things about a phenomenon without understanding everything about it.

If you find an example of consciousness that exists apart from a living brain, please let me know. Again, I would be genuinely interested in reading that peer reviewed paper.

That is not the point. But I will point out your mistake. Whatever you know is consciousness only. We know that we know nothing in deep sleep. That too is consciousness. Knowledge that we knew nothing is consciousness. Nothing you know can be delinked from the existing and given consciousness. So, I am asking what is a 'living brain'?
...

Anyway. It seems that you have not read the main point of the author that you can calculate a wave function for the universe, but that universe will not move.

"Thus we see that by an investigation of the wave function of the universe as a whole one sometimes gets information which has no direct relevance to the observational data, e.g. that the universe does not evolve in time. In order to describe the universe as we see it one should divide the universe into several macroscopic pieces and calculate a conditional probability to observe it in a given state under an obvious condition that the observer and his measuring apparatus do exist. Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time."

...

 

[shunyadragon]

Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time."

The universe could care less.

 

[KelseyR]

This thread is linked closely to an earlier thread: An underlying mental world out there .

I however felt that the thoughts of Andrei Linde deserved a separate thread on its own.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1425656584247/universe-life-consciousness.pdf

The author says:

"...There remained one point which was hidden from us and which remained unexplained: the moment of creation of the universe as a whole. The mystery of creation of everything from nothing could seem to be too great to be considered scientifically.

With the development of inflationary cosmology the situation somewhat changed. The possibility that the universe eternally re-creates itself in all its possible forms does not necessarily resolves the problem of creation, but pushes it back to indefinite past. By doing so, the properties of our world become totally disentangled from the properties of the universe at the time when it was born (if there was such time at all). In other words, one may argue that the properties of our world do not represent the original design and cannot carry any message from the Creator. ..."​

Then he goes on to consider the possibilty that a physicist may create the Universe in a Laboratory. He questions:

"Does this mean that our universe was created by a physicist hacker? Does this mean that only physicists can read the message of God? .."​

In the final section 9 "Quantum Cosmology and nature of consciousness", he becomes sceptical and questions as below:

"A possibility described above represents an ultimate example of the arrogance of science. One may consider this possibility seriously, because it shows that there may be nothing beyond physics and technology in the act of creation of the universe. However, is it conceivable that our understanding of the universe is too simplistic? Is it possible that we are making a conceptual mistake at the moment when we are making an obvious assumption that the universe is real, and that it encompasses everything?"​

He avers

"Thus we see that by an investigation of the wave function of the universe as a whole one sometimes gets information which has no direct relevance to the observational data, e.g. that the universe does not evolve in time. In order to describe the universe as we see it one should divide the universe into several macroscopic pieces and calculate a conditional probability to observe it in a given state under an obvious condition that the observer and his measuring apparatus do exist. Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. Does this mean that an observer is simultaneously a creator?"​

Andrei Linde is a hardcore physics man. He uses physics and analytical logic to conclude that without conscious observation/s, the universe will not move. He further suggests:

"Is it not possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?...

.....Is it possible to introduce a “space of elements of consciousness,” and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?"​

I enjoyed reading the paper immensely. I invite physicist members to enjoy.

I immediately spotted several common fallacies theists like to use:

1) A singular, samsara universe repeating itself in various forms is ancient and well refuted nonsense.

2) Mentioning the inability of scientists to create life or (in this case) nature in a laboratory is an old theist ploy leading to a false deduction that if man can't do it God must have done it.

I advise rereading this person's work and counting how many instances of falsity rooted in bias he is teaching. I rate his conclusions low.

 

[Left Coast]

That is not the point. But I will point out your mistake. Whatever you know is consciousness only. We know that we know nothing in deep sleep. That too is consciousness. Knowledge that we knew nothing is consciousness. Nothing you know can be delinked from the existing and given consciousness. So, I am asking what is a 'living brain'?

And I answered you. You haven't pointed out a mistake at all, but simply the obvious fact that our experiences are contingent on our consciousness. And we know that we can affect our conscious experiences by changing our brain states. If you smack me in the head hard enough, my consciousness will cease (see also: boxing). If you electrically stimulate parts of my brain, you can literally change what I consciously experience. And we can (and have) map the parts of the brain associated with a variety of conscious experiences. Again, we have never observed a consciousness outside or independent of a living brain. If and when you discover one, let me know.

I fully admit I don't know enough about quantum mechanics or quantum cosmology. I have a feeling, however, that if Stephen Hawking were still alive he would strongly object to the notion that his insights into the origin of the universe require a consciousness independent of it.

 

[ChristineM]

This thread is linked closely to an earlier thread: An underlying mental world out there .

I however felt that the thoughts of Andrei Linde deserved a separate thread on its own.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1425656584247/universe-life-consciousness.pdf

The author says:

"...There remained one point which was hidden from us and which remained unexplained: the moment of creation of the universe as a whole. The mystery of creation of everything from nothing could seem to be too great to be considered scientifically.

With the development of inflationary cosmology the situation somewhat changed. The possibility that the universe eternally re-creates itself in all its possible forms does not necessarily resolves the problem of creation, but pushes it back to indefinite past. By doing so, the properties of our world become totally disentangled from the properties of the universe at the time when it was born (if there was such time at all). In other words, one may argue that the properties of our world do not represent the original design and cannot carry any message from the Creator. ..."​

Then he goes on to consider the possibilty that a physicist may create the Universe in a Laboratory. He questions:

"Does this mean that our universe was created by a physicist hacker? Does this mean that only physicists can read the message of God? .."​

In the final section 9 "Quantum Cosmology and nature of consciousness", he becomes sceptical and questions as below:

"A possibility described above represents an ultimate example of the arrogance of science. One may consider this possibility seriously, because it shows that there may be nothing beyond physics and technology in the act of creation of the universe. However, is it conceivable that our understanding of the universe is too simplistic? Is it possible that we are making a conceptual mistake at the moment when we are making an obvious assumption that the universe is real, and that it encompasses everything?"​

He avers

"Thus we see that by an investigation of the wave function of the universe as a whole one sometimes gets information which has no direct relevance to the observational data, e.g. that the universe does not evolve in time. In order to describe the universe as we see it one should divide the universe into several macroscopic pieces and calculate a conditional probability to observe it in a given state under an obvious condition that the observer and his measuring apparatus do exist. Without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. Does this mean that an observer is simultaneously a creator?"​

Andrei Linde is a hardcore physics man. He uses physics and analytical logic to conclude that without conscious observation/s, the universe will not move. He further suggests:

"Is it not possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?...

.....Is it possible to introduce a “space of elements of consciousness,” and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?"​

I enjoyed reading the paper immensely. I invite physicist members to enjoy.

I have great respect for Andrei Linde as a cosmologists but he does have a tendency to gather strange,even crazy ideas, thinks them through and discards much flotsam. In a year or two when he has seriously considered the above and passed it by some of his colleagues then it should make good reading. Untill then you have the meanderings of a brilliant mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have great respect for Andrei Linde as a cosmologists but he does have a tendency to gather strange,even crazy ideas, thinks them through and discards much flotsam. In a year or two when he has seriously considered the above and passed it by some of his colleagues then it should make good reading. Untill then you have the meanderings of a brilliant mind.

Andrei Linde, good cosmologist, but a not so good a philosopher.

 

[atanu]

I have great respect for Andrei Linde as a cosmologists but he does have a tendency to gather strange,even crazy ideas, thinks them through and discards much flotsam. In a year or two when he has seriously considered the above and passed it by some of his colleagues then it should make good reading. Untill then you have the meanderings of a brilliant mind.

What exactly is crazy in the paper?

 

[atanu]

I fully admit I don't know enough about quantum mechanics or quantum cosmology. I have a feeling, however, that if Stephen Hawking were still alive he would strongly object to the notion that his insights into the origin of the universe require a consciousness independent of it.

Feeling? You are entitled to that of course.

 

[atanu]

I immediately spotted several common fallacies theists like to use:

1) A singular, samsara universe repeating itself in various forms is ancient and well refuted nonsense.

2) Mentioning the inability of scientists to create life or (in this case) nature in a laboratory is an old theist ploy leading to a false deduction that if man can't do it God must have done it.

I advise rereading this person's work and counting how many instances of falsity rooted in bias he is teaching. I rate his conclusions low.

Are you talking of Linde’s paper?