The Cosmic Observer

[atanu]

This post is to generate a discussion on Cosmic observer. For this purpose, I invite knowledgeable members to contribute to the concept of the Cosmic Observer, objectively, without superimposing the concepts of philosophical materialism on pure knowledge of science. Kindly let us compare pure knowledge of science with 'Nasadiya Sukta and a passage from Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Nasadiya Sukta is from Rig Veda. Nasadiya means 'na asat' that which is not untrue, which means that there is no truth claim as such but there is a claim that what is said is not untrue. The text is given below. I note the followings. First, the Sukta if seen from the perspective of the individual, seems to be the describing the deep sleep and the creation of forms thereupon depending on particular desires -- often unknown to the individual. But this sukta is talking in terms of the macrocosm -- of the Cosmos as a whole. Second, the sukta indicates that it can never be ascertained whether the creator consciously creates or not, but the verse is certain of the existence of a Seer of the so-called creation.

Nasadiya Sukta - Wikipedia

Nasadiya Sukta
Translation by Basham 1954

1. Then even non-existence was not there, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the space beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic fluid, in depths unfathomed?

2. Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

3. At first, there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose, at last, born of the power of heat.

4. In the beginning, desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

5. And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.​

...

Next, I refer to Svetasvatara Upanishad, which elaborates on the nature of Truth and Lord - Isha in the name of Rudra-Shiva -- the deity that is the sound maker in all of us -- the Deity that feels and asserts "I am" in all. The main theme of the Upanishad is "One Deity -- without a second, is the self within all beings. Knowing which all sufferings and bondages are overcome". Anyone who wishes to learn more about the Svetasvtara Upanishad may read the following.

Shvetashvatara Upanishad - Wikipedia

I, however, wish to point attention to a particular part of the Upanishad, namely, the part dealing with the role of seeing. Commonly in Hinduism, it is the mind that is accorded the post of Creator -- both at individual and at Cosmic levels. At the cosmic level, the universal creator mind is called brahmA ( which is male and is different from the neuter Brahman, which is the substratum). brahmA, the cosmic mind, the creator is called Hiranyagarbha -- the golden womb. But what or who is the Seer of the mind? And here the Upanishad brings in Isha, Lord, Rudra Maharishi -- the deity with infinite eyes.

The Upanishad says:
Chapter 4.12

May He who created the gods and supports them; who witnessed the birth of the cosmic soul (hiranyagarbha brahmA) ; who confers bliss and wisdom on the devoted, destroying their sons and sorrows, and punishing all breaches of law; may He the great Seer and the Lord of all, endow us with good thoughts.​

It is clear that in the Upanishad, the designation of Lord is accorded to the non-dual Cosmic Seer that exists transcendentally and also pervading the manifest universe. Upanishad further says that knowing the non-dual truth. all fetters fall off. To me, it is clear that once the notion of individual doer-ship is lost through experience-knowledge of the non-dual truth, there will remain no sense of bondage.

But let us keep aside the theism and the implications. Let us only concentrate on the role of the 'Seer' -- the cosmic observer.

So, I invite knowledgeable members to contribute to the concept of the Cosmic Observer from a real scientific point of view of cosmology, objectively, without superimposing the concepts of philosophical materialism on pure knowledge of science.

...

 

[sayak83]

This post is to generate a discussion on Cosmic observer. For this purpose, I invite knowledgeable members to contribute to the concept of the Cosmic Observer, objectively, without superimposing the concepts of philosophical materialism on pure knowledge of science. Kindly let us compare pure knowledge of science with 'Nasadiya Sukta and a passage from Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Nasadiya Sukta is from Rig Veda. Nasadiya means 'na asat' that which is not untrue, which means that there is no truth claim as such but there is a claim that what is said is not untrue. The text is given below. I note the followings. First, the Sukta if seen from the perspective of the individual, seems to be the describing the deep sleep and the creation of forms thereupon depending on particular desires -- often unknown to the individual. But this sukta is talking in terms of the macrocosm -- of the Cosmos as a whole. Second, the sukta indicates that it can never be ascertained whether the creator consciously creates or not, but the verse is certain of the existence of a Seer of the so-called creation.

Nasadiya Sukta - Wikipedia

Nasadiya Sukta
Translation by
(Basham 1954)

1. Then even non-existence was not there, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the space beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic fluid, in depths unfathomed?

2. Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

3. At first, there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose, at last, born of the power of heat.

4. In the beginning, desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

5. And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.​

...

Next, I refer to Svetasvatara Upanishad, which elaborates on the nature of Truth and Lord - Isha in the name of Rudra-Shiva -- the deity that is the sound maker in all of us -- the Deity that feels and asserts "I am" in all. The main theme of the Upanishad is "One Deity -- without a second, is the self within all beings. Knowing which all sufferings and bondages are overcome". Anyone who wishes to learn more about the Svetasvtara Upanishad may read the following.

Shvetashvatara Upanishad - Wikipedia

I, however, wish to point attention to a particular part of the Upanishad, namely, the part dealing with the role of seeing. Commonly in Hinduism, it is the mind that is accorded the post of Creator -- both at individual and at Cosmic levels. At the cosmic level, the universal creator mind is called brahmA ( which is male and is different from the neuter Brahman, which is the substratum). brahmA, the cosmic mind, the creator is called Hiranyagarbha -- the golden womb. But what or who is the Seer of the mind? And here the Upanishad brings in Isha, Lord, Rudra Maharishi -- the deity with infinite eyes.

The Upanishad says:
Chapter 4.12

May He who created the gods and supports them; who witnessed the birth of the cosmic soul (hiranyagarbha brahmA) ; who confers bliss and wisdom on the devoted, destroying their sons and sorrows, and punishing all breaches of law; may He the great Seer and the Lord of all, endow us with good thoughts.​

It is clear that in the Upanishad, the designation of Lord is accorded to the non-dual Cosmic Seer that exists transcendentally and also pervading the manifest universe. Upanishad further says that knowing the non-dual truth. all fetters fall off. To me, it is clear that once the notion of individual doer-ship is lost through experience-knowledge of the non-dual truth, there will remain no sense of bondage.

But let us keep aside the theism and the implications. Let us only concentrate on the role of the 'Seer' -- the cosmic observer.

So, I invite knowledgeable members to contribute to the concept of the Cosmic Observer from a real scientific point of view of cosmology, objectively, without superimposing the concepts of philosophical materialism on pure knowledge of science.

...

As far as I know science has no such concept of a Cosmic Observer.

 

[Native]

This post is to generate a discussion on Cosmic observer. For this purpose, I invite knowledgeable members to contribute to the concept of the Cosmic Observer, objectively, without superimposing the concepts of philosophical materialism on pure knowledge of science. Kindly let us compare pure knowledge of science with 'Nasadiya Sukta and a passage from Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Nasadiya Sukta is from Rig Veda. Nasadiya means 'na asat' that which is not untrue, which means that there is no truth claim as such but there is a claim that what is said is not untrue. The text is given below. I note the followings. First, the Sukta if seen from the perspective of the individual, seems to be the describing the deep sleep and the creation of forms thereupon depending on particular desires -- often unknown to the individual. But this sukta is talking in terms of the macrocosm -- of the Cosmos as a whole. Second, the sukta indicates that it can never be ascertained whether the creator consciously creates or not, but the verse is certain of the existence of a Seer of the so-called creation.

I agree very much on the "Cosmic Observer" term. Even the smallest Native Tribe had/have such an observer, called a Shaman. And we all have such an observer if we learn to listen to its intuitive messages and symbols.

Nasadiya Sukta - Wikipedia

Nasadiya Sukta
Translation by
(Basham 1954)

1. Then even non-existence was not there, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the space beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic fluid, in depths unfathomed?

2. Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

3. At first, there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose, at last, born of the power of heat.

4. In the beginning, desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

5. And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.

This Story of Creation can be recognized in all cultures all over the world, simple because they describes the same human astronomical and cosmological conditions - as described in my profile signature below.

And, if connecting an actual myth to the correct astronomical or cosmological realms, these Stories of Creation fits very well to modern cosmological science - and can even correct this by having a cyclical approach to cosmology compared to the linear perception in modern science.

Ancient Stories of Creation don´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe as this is cyclical and eternal. But they spoke IMO of the pre-creation and the factual creation of the Milky Way and everything in our galaxy.

But let us keep aside the theism and the implications. Let us only concentrate on the role of the 'Seer' -- the cosmic observer.

Agreed. Ancient deities should be interpreted as "creative forces and qualities" and not as "personalized beings" if the purpose is to compare ancient myths to modern science.

 

[atanu]

As far as I know science has no such concept of a Cosmic Observer.

There are two kinds of observers, one in quantum phenomena and another kind in cosmology, although probably not as stated in the Vedas. But that exactly is the subject here — to state the differences without imposing philosophy of materialism.

 

[exchemist]

This post is to generate a discussion on Cosmic observer. For this purpose, I invite knowledgeable members to contribute to the concept of the Cosmic Observer, objectively, without superimposing the concepts of philosophical materialism on pure knowledge of science. Kindly let us compare pure knowledge of science with 'Nasadiya Sukta and a passage from Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Nasadiya Sukta is from Rig Veda. Nasadiya means 'na asat' that which is not untrue, which means that there is no truth claim as such but there is a claim that what is said is not untrue. The text is given below. I note the followings. First, the Sukta if seen from the perspective of the individual, seems to be the describing the deep sleep and the creation of forms thereupon depending on particular desires -- often unknown to the individual. But this sukta is talking in terms of the macrocosm -- of the Cosmos as a whole. Second, the sukta indicates that it can never be ascertained whether the creator consciously creates or not, but the verse is certain of the existence of a Seer of the so-called creation.

Nasadiya Sukta - Wikipedia

Nasadiya Sukta
Translation by
(Basham 1954)

1. Then even non-existence was not there, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the space beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic fluid, in depths unfathomed?

2. Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

3. At first, there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose, at last, born of the power of heat.

4. In the beginning, desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

5. And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.​

...

Next, I refer to Svetasvatara Upanishad, which elaborates on the nature of Truth and Lord - Isha in the name of Rudra-Shiva -- the deity that is the sound maker in all of us -- the Deity that feels and asserts "I am" in all. The main theme of the Upanishad is "One Deity -- without a second, is the self within all beings. Knowing which all sufferings and bondages are overcome". Anyone who wishes to learn more about the Svetasvtara Upanishad may read the following.

Shvetashvatara Upanishad - Wikipedia

I, however, wish to point attention to a particular part of the Upanishad, namely, the part dealing with the role of seeing. Commonly in Hinduism, it is the mind that is accorded the post of Creator -- both at individual and at Cosmic levels. At the cosmic level, the universal creator mind is called brahmA ( which is male and is different from the neuter Brahman, which is the substratum). brahmA, the cosmic mind, the creator is called Hiranyagarbha -- the golden womb. But what or who is the Seer of the mind? And here the Upanishad brings in Isha, Lord, Rudra Maharishi -- the deity with infinite eyes.

The Upanishad says:
Chapter 4.12

May He who created the gods and supports them; who witnessed the birth of the cosmic soul (hiranyagarbha brahmA) ; who confers bliss and wisdom on the devoted, destroying their sons and sorrows, and punishing all breaches of law; may He the great Seer and the Lord of all, endow us with good thoughts.​

It is clear that in the Upanishad, the designation of Lord is accorded to the non-dual Cosmic Seer that exists transcendentally and also pervading the manifest universe. Upanishad further says that knowing the non-dual truth. all fetters fall off. To me, it is clear that once the notion of individual doer-ship is lost through experience-knowledge of the non-dual truth, there will remain no sense of bondage.

But let us keep aside the theism and the implications. Let us only concentrate on the role of the 'Seer' -- the cosmic observer.

So, I invite knowledgeable members to contribute to the concept of the Cosmic Observer from a real scientific point of view of cosmology, objectively, without superimposing the concepts of philosophical materialism on pure knowledge of science.

...

I agree with @sayak83 . I am unaware of any such idea in science.

Furthermore it is extremely hard to see it could be a scientific idea, since there doesn't seem to be any way to test the hypothesis.

 

[exchemist]

There are two kinds of observers, one in quantum phenomena and another kind in cosmology.

But they are optional and not cosmic.

 

[Native]

As far as I know science has no such concept of a Cosmic Observer.

And:

I agree with @sayak83 . I am unaware of any such idea in science.

Furthermore it is extremely hard to see it could be a scientific idea, since there doesn't seem to be any way to test the hypothesis.

Atanu said:

It is clear that in the Upanishad, the designation of Lord is accorded to the non-dual Cosmic Seer that exists transcendentally and also pervading the manifest universe. Upanishad further says that knowing the non-dual truth. all fetters fall off.

As the OP here concerns and demands a non-dualistic debaters approach, you´ll get nowhere fast if having an exclusive approach. You have to work complementary with this topic and not exclusive.

 

[sayak83]

There are two kinds of observers, one in quantum phenomena and another kind in cosmology, although probably not as stated in the Vedas. But that exactly is the subject here — to state the differences without imposing philosophy of materialism.

I am unaware that there are. I have not read anything about any cosmic observer either in cosmology or quantum mechanics.

 

[Native]

I am unaware that there are. I have not read anything about any cosmic observer either in cosmology or quantum mechanics.

Aren´t you a "Cosmic Observer" yourself?

 

[atanu]

I agree with @sayak83 . I am unaware of any such idea in science.

Furthermore it is extremely hard to see it could be a scientific idea, since there doesn't seem to be any way to test the hypothesis.

Light needs no second light to announce its presence. Consciousness needs no third party proof. On the other hand, 'Many World theory' of Everett that came in response to the fine-tuning anthropic principle cannot be tested or falsified.

For your information, both from cosmology and from quantum perspectives, the role of the observer is suggested by data. Although most scientists support the idea of inanimate interaction and quantum entanglement, some scientists do point out that even to know that inanimate interaction has taken place consciousness is required. In fact, how can anyone overlook the fact that Wheeler's 'Delayed Choice' experiment does show that human choice leads to observable changes in the outcome?

I did not create this post for a usual debate wherein the opponents have fixed world views and are determined at the outset to not accept to even see the data that may support an alternate view. There is no point in that kind of the imposition of one's world view on data. The goal for this post, on the other hand, is to place facts from both sides, so that enquiring reader can form their opinion.

...

 

[atanu]

I am unaware that there are. I have not read anything about any cosmic observer either in cosmology or quantum mechanics.

You can listen to some real physicists instead of to me. Remember that I am not taking any side.

 

[atanu]

I will like to highlight (as Bernard Carr in the above video also clarified) that the consciousness is the first-person perspective. Most always confuse the objects of consciousness (that are always 2nd or third-person perspectives) with actual first-person consciousness that is of the nature of knowing, feeling, and imagining.
...

 

[rational experiences]

Every human today is born from sperm and an ovary, separate body information to being human itself. You are born and released into a body of space, inside of a female human Mother body.....your first aware conscious concepts in self development.

An observer is first observed. For I observe science the observer. I am a human too. I however own no want to observe information and placate that I know.

I just live in the conditions of my awareness, natural, what conditions support my life, and try not to apply damage whilst I live knowing by observation that the human self, one self and one body dies. Knowing that my human consciousness will not exist afterwards as just this one self.

Science observes by first condition, want of motivation. Which displaces natural order and then confuses the mind being.

Now if I observe you observing and asides from observing, you design/invent and then cause my life to be attacked, then I observe science for what it is....a destroyer.

You however want to be a Creator...by inference of personal understanding of everything even when it was nothing. Only by mind.

So then you would infer, what mind do you understand about nothing?

And it would state space.

Hence if the consciousness seeks to claim first/beginning and then conceptualize it...then it can only own a concept of belief about knowing...yet even knowing does not substantiate owning.

Which takes you back to the origin of wanting cosmic observation to identify...which is not purposeful...for you do not own the comparable presence of being equal to what you pertain is observation meaning. Equal is where the observer says is the place for removal.

 

[exchemist]

Light needs no second light to announce its presence. Consciousness needs no third party proof. On the other hand, 'Many World theory' of Everett that came in response to the fine-tuning anthropic principle cannot be tested or falsified.

For your information, both from cosmology and from quantum perspectives, the role of the observer is suggested by data. Although most scientists support the idea of inanimate interaction and quantum entanglement, some scientists do point out that even to know that inanimate interaction has taken place consciousness is required. In fact, how can anyone overlook the fact that Wheeler's 'Delayed Choice' experiment does show that human choice leads to observable changes in the outcome?

I did not create this post for a usual debate wherein the opponents have fixed world views and are determined at the outset to not accept to even see the data that may support an alternate view. There is no point in that kind of the imposition of one's world view on data. The goal for this post, on the other hand, is to place facts from both sides, so that enquiring reader can form their opinion.

...

There is no role for an observer suggested by data. This is a misunderstanding of the science, that's all.

QUOTE

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not have to necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

A number of new-age religious or philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims.

UNQUOTE

From: Observer (quantum physics) - Wikipedia

 

[rational experiences]

If a human said, I observe and claim consciousness begins or owns spatial awareness as the state space...if you put self into space, first of all you would not own any Earthly support. You could only enter space by conditions of a machine.

Hence you would realize that no consciousness exists in space.

But if you asked consciousness that seeks to observe what it knows about space as consciousness, then it would begin with the observation of a theory.

Mountains present, vision, which is not thinking. Observation of the vision plus applied thinking. Awareness of the mountain existing, and yet ending as a mass removal to space, yet gas atmosphere present.

Observation of consciousness observing space in consciousness.

If you asked a theist their observation as consciousness from its beginnings it would describe self in the spatial water womb and when light was first observed as their conscious presence of self began, human baby.

 

[atanu]

There is no role for an observer suggested by data. This is a misunderstanding of the science, that's all.

QUOTE

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not have to necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

A number of new-age religious or philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims.

UNQUOTE

From: Observer (quantum physics) - Wikipedia

Do you rely on Wiki rather than on actual physicists? Well. Do the apparatus note and interpret the results? Do the apparatus make the choices in the delayed choice experiments. As the physicists say this is not a solved issue and according to may the study of self-referential consciousness in a physics model is beyond the scope of physics. How can the subjective first-party consciousness be put in a model?

But I do not disagree with the WIKI article since I am not talking of human brain mediated consciousness at all. WIKI article actually supports the concept that the conscious observer system -- that records information and acts upon that information -- is intrinsic to the reality. Obviously you have not carefully read the Wikitext. It says:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[2]"​

So, what is essential is that the observer system has the function of registering decisions.

Now, which machine on its own, without being instructed, registers decisions and alters the outcomes? So, the role of intentions-choices-instructions from conscious beings are inbuilt, in my view.

...

 

[exchemist]

Do you rely on Wiki rather than on actual physicists? Well. Do the apparatus note and interpret the results? Do the apparatus make the choices in the delayed choice experiments.

But I do not disagree with the WIKI article since I am not talking of human brain mediated consciousness at all. WIKI article actually supports the concept that the conscious observer system -- that records information and acts upon that information -- is intrinsic to the reality.

...

I just chose an easy source that was to hand. Do you demand that I produce another source? I can easily do that if you like.

As for this "conscious observer system" you mention, all I can say is I don't recognise this, that physics has no need of such a thing, as it leads to nothing testable, and so by Ockham's Razor it is not part of science.

You can always superimpose things on top of science if you want to do some metaphysics, of course.

 

[atanu]

I just chose an easy source that was to hand. Do you demand that I produce another source? I can easily do that if you like.

As for this "conscious observer system" you mention, all I can say is I don't recognise this, that physics has no need of such a thing, as it leads to nothing testable, and so by Ockham's Razor it is not part of science.

You can always superimpose things on top of science if you want to do some metaphysics, of course.

Please read my edited reply. And also, if you wish so, please listen to the interview of actual physics people.

I repeat here that your cited Wikitext proves you wrong. The text says:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[2]"

So, what is essential is that the observer system has the function of registering decisions.

Now, which machine on its own, without being instructed, registers decisions and alters the outcomes? So, the role of intentions-choices-instructions from conscious beings are inbuilt, in my view. These recording machines were built with the given consciousness.
...

 

[exchemist]

Do you rely on Wiki rather than on actual physicists? Well. Do the apparatus note and interpret the results? Do the apparatus make the choices in the delayed choice experiments. As the physicists say this is not a solved issue and according to may the study of self-referential consciousness in a physics model is beyond the scope of physics. How can the subjective first-party consciousness be put in a model?

But I do not disagree with the WIKI article since I am not talking of human brain mediated consciousness at all. WIKI article actually supports the concept that the conscious observer system -- that records information and acts upon that information -- is intrinsic to the reality. Obviously you have not carefully read the Wikitext. It says:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[2]"​

So, what is essential is that the observer system has the function of registering decisions.

Now, which machine on its own, without being instructed, registers decisions and alters the outcomes? So, the role of intentions-choices-instructions from conscious beings are inbuilt, in my view.

...

I've read it. It says that it does not matter whether the "observer" is an apparatus or a human being. So an apparatus will do. Transition from possible to actual is the key step and interaction with the detector is enough.

There is nothing here about anything conscious.

 

[atanu]

I've read it. It says that it does not matter whether the "observer" is an apparatus or a human being. So an apparatus will do. Transition from possible to actual is the key step and interaction with the detector is enough.

There is nothing here about anything conscious.

These are unthinking-unconscious statements.

Did any apparatus conclude what you are so confidently asserting? Or did scientists conclude so? When you say that the interaction of billiard balls is enough to collapse wave functions, you still need to know that the billiard balls have interacted. Furthermore, the delayed choice experiment involves a real delayed choice. Evidently eventually somewhere in the chain, a conscious interaction is involved. Someone has to decide to use or not use a recorder or a process.

You are arguing in vain because you have not listened to the 'Closer to Truth' interviews I linked. Scientists do not discard the point of 'observer' as lightly as you or the WIKi page does. You may wish to read the following concept paper of Andrei Linde, who is one of the authors of the 'Expanding Universe' theory.

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

The paper is extremely lucid and interesting. I am reproducing some parts of it. Linde is a hardcore physicist.

9. Quantum Cosmology and the Nature of Consciousness

A possibility described above represents an ultimate example of the arrogance of science. ...

If quantum mechanics is true, then one may try to find the wave function of the universe. ... Therefore if one would wish to describe the evolution of the universe with the help of its wave function, one would be in trouble: The universe does not change in time, it is immortal, and it is dead.

The resolution of this paradox is rather instructive. The notion of evolution is not applicable to the universe as a whole since there is no external observer with respect to the universe, and there is no external clock as well which would not belong to the universe. However, we do not actually ask why the universe as a whole is evolving in the way we see it. We are just trying to understand our own experimental data. Thus, a more precisely formulated question is why do we see the universe evolving in time in a given way. In order to answer this question one should first divide the universe into two main pieces: an observer with his clock and other measuring devices and the rest of the universe.
........​

This example demonstrates an unusually important role played by the concept of an observer in quantum cosmology. Most of the time, when discussing quantum cosmology, one can remain entirely within the bounds set by purely physical categories, regarding an observer simply as an automaton, and not dealing with questions of whether he has consciousness or feels anything during the process of observation. This limitation is harmless for many practical purposes. But we cannot rule out the possibility a priori that carefully avoiding the concept of consciousness in quantum cosmology constitutes an artificial narrowing of one's outlook. A number of authors have underscored the complexity of the situation, replacing the word observer with the word {it participant}, and introducing such terms as a “self-observing universe”.
...
Now let us turn to consciousness. According to standard materialistic doctrine, consciousness, like space-time before the invention of general relativity, plays a secondary, subservient role, being considered just a function of matter and a tool for the description of the truly existing material world. But let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know for sure that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory. Later we find out that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality beyond our perceptions. This model of material world obeying laws of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our starting point
...
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? What if our perceptions are as real (or maybe, in a certain sense, are even more real) than material objects?
​

Linde makes it clear that without incorporating "self-observing universe", the wave function yields an unchanging universe. I hunbly request that you may read the full paper and especially the Chapter 9.

You may also, in addition to the videos linked earlier, wish to seee the following:

Why Explore Consciousness and Cosmos? - Andrei Linde | Closer to Truth

...

​