The Cosmic Observer

[atanu]

I think you provided a good summary. In a nutshell, I think the paper says that the environment in which a system is immersed in is constantly "measuring" the system countless number of times, and out of this innumerable micro-measurement type interactiobs, the classical property values, that we traditionally characterize the system's reality by, emergent. So reality is emergent from system-environment interactions and does not exist without such interactions.

The quantum theory as is understood here is very close to the dependent-origination-flux model that Buddha proposed about reality.

Yes. Even in the initial formulation of Bohr versus Everett, it was evident that the influence of Upanishads and/or Buddhism played a role. Bohr was an Upanishad reader. His formulation envisaged a complete reality whereas Everett went for states relative to each other. The cited paper itself says that Wheeler found that Everet's was an extension of Bohr's formulation.

But it is not true that Buddha taught only temporariness. He also taught 'Nirvana' - the unborn-unformed-uncreated. Some Western Buddhists, and probably some Eastern too, insist that Buddhism teaches 'no reality'. I think that is a nihilistic take on Buddha's teaching.

To come back to the subject. The paper says that information exchange is crucial. But the point remains that billiard balls may interact but the system must know that interaction has taken place. In my opinion, 'no consciousness' take is a wilful stand of current day majority.

...

 

[sayak83]

Yes. Even in the initial formulation of Bohr versus Everett, it was evident that the influence of Upanishads and/or Buddhism played a role. Bohr was an Upanishad reader. His formulation envisaged a complete reality whereas Everett went for states relative to each other. The cited paper itself says that Wheeler found that Everet's was an extension of Bohr's formulation.

But it is not true that Buddha taught only temporariness. He also taught 'Nirvana' - the unborn-unformed-uncreated. Some Western Buddhists, and probably some Eastern too, insist that Buddhism teaches 'no reality'. I think that is a nihilistic take on Buddha's teaching.

To come back to the subject. The paper says that information exchange is crucial. But the point remains that billiard balls may interact but the system must know that interaction has taken place. In my opinion, 'no consciousness' take is a wilful stand of current day majority.

...

Changing of environment state due to interaction and corresponding information transfer constitutes a sufficient condition for measurement. I do not see any role of "knowledge" in a conscious state in this. Maths do not require or support such an add on proposition.

For example, in a delayed choice expt., the measuring apparatus can be randomized between the choices such that a conscious agent has no say in the choice being made. That works as well, showing irrelevance of agent consciousness in the matter.

 

[atanu]

Changing of environment state due to interaction and corresponding information transfer constitutes a sufficient condition for measurement. I do not see any role of "knowledge" in a conscious state in this. Maths do not require or support such an add on proposition.

For example, in a delayed-choice expt., the measuring apparatus can be randomized between the choices such that a conscious agent has no say in the choice being made. That works as well, showing irrelevance of agent consciousness in the matter.

When you randomize in a delayed-choice experiment, do you take out your role completely? I do not think. It is still there because the agent will note the outcome and agent intiated the randomisation. See. IMO, here, the ego of most scientists (I do not mean you) that "I who do science' can always do better than metapphysics is the hurdle.

You will note that the paper you cited does two things on Everett's formulation. They compartmentalise the system to enable information exchange between (as suggested by Linde in his concept paper). Second, they introduce preferred states. Agreed that the first of these requires no 'phenomenal consciousness'. But it implies that access consciousness is inherent in the system. There are information exchanges and change of state based on information. The second concept of 'preferred states' is more difficult to judge, but IMO, it suggests that phenomenal consciousness plays a role. After all, who knows about the preferred states -- the appearance sun, moon, etc. etc.? WE. We know thee final collapsed states.

Again when I say 'we', I do not mean 'the individual consciousness' but the consciousness that is common to us all, that is shared amongst us. In short, I am pointing to 'objective idealism'. In the final chain, we are part of the system. The "I am" awareness and the associated phenomenal consciousness cannot be derived from the initial mass, angular momentum, and charge of the Blackhole condition or from mass-energy and space-time of the Big Bang. This is what Linde and others emphasise.

In summary, the findings of the paper show that an access type of algorithmic consciousness is inherent in nature. The findings also suggest -- by acknowledging that a concept of preferred states is required in the mode -- that we in the final chain also are factors. nd when we ay 'we' I point to the shared consciousness.

The above does not clash with any metaphysics of any religion. Beyond this, I agree to disagree. I will intensify my mediation and consolidate that consciousness is not a mere epiphenomenon.

Best.



...

 

[sayak83]

When you randomize in a delayed-choice experiment, do you take out your role completely? I do not think. It is still there because the agent will note the outcome and agent intiated the randomisation. See. IMO, here, the ego of most scientists (I do not mean you) that "I who do science' can always do better than metapphysics is the hurdle.

You will note that the paper you cited does two things on Everett's formulation. They compartmentalise the system to enable information exchange between (as suggested by Linde in his concept paper). Second, they introduce preferred states. Agreed that the first of these requires no 'phenomenal consciousness'. But it implies that access consciousness is inherent in the system. There are information exchanges and change of state based on information. The second concept of 'preferred states' is more difficult to judge, but IMO, it suggests that phenomenal consciousness plays a role. After all, who knows about the preferred states -- the appearance sun, moon, etc. etc.? WE. We know thee final collapsed states.

Again when I say 'we', I do not mean 'the individual consciousness' but the consciousness that is common to us all, that is shared amongst us. In short, I am pointing to 'objective idealism'. In the final chain, we are part of the system. The "I am" awareness and the associated phenomenal consciousness cannot be derived from the initial mass, angular momentum, and charge of the Blackhole condition or from mass-energy and space-time of the Big Bang. This is what Linde and others emphasise.

In summary, the findings of the paper show that an access type of algorithmic consciousness is inherent in nature. The findings also suggest -- by acknowledging that a concept of preferred states is required in the mode -- that we in the final chain also are factors. nd when we ay 'we' I point to the shared consciousness.

The above does not clash with any metaphysics of any religion. Beyond this, I agree to disagree. I will intensify my mediation and consolidate that consciousness is not a mere epiphenomenon.

Best.



...

Quick post now. Randomization can easily be done by a spontaneous natural process ( like atomic decay) and passive noting of the final effect (like typing on an excel sheet) has no bearing on the delayed choice expt. Indeed, even the noting can be done remotely in a computer.
No.. I don't see any role of a sentient agent on the outcome of delayed choice type systems.

I will respond to the rest later. Am outside.

 

[atanu]

Quick post now. Randomization can easily be done by a spontaneous natural process ( like atomic decay) and passive noting of the final effect (like typing on an excel sheet) has no bearing on the delayed choice expt. Indeed, even the noting can be done remotely in a computer.
No.. I don't see any role of a sentient agent on the outcome of delayed choice type systems.

I will respond to the rest later. Am outside.

Atomic decay? Who controls the half-life accuracy? That actually is what I am trying to tell. The access type of consciousness is built-in nature -- and we go and find laws. And when building computing machines we input the algorithm wherein the access consciousness is already given. But what about the phenomenal consciousness? Kindly ssee that this point is clear.

I think that we are saying the same thing but are not able to converge. In order to hasten convergence (hopefully) let me ask a question. Do you think that starting with mass, angular momentum, and charge, quantum cosmology (or whatever other physics you can invoke) can derive 'phenomenal consciousness'?

...

 

[sayak83]

Atomic decay? Who controls the half-life accuracy? That actually is what I am trying to tell. The access type of consciousness is built-in nature -- and we go and find laws. And when building computing machines we input the algorithm wherein the access consciousness is already given. But what about the phenomenal consciousness? Kindly ssee that this point is clear.

I think that we are saying the same thing but are not able to converge. In order to hasten convergence (hopefully) let me ask a question. Do you think that starting with mass, angular momentum, and charge, quantum cosmology (or whatever other physics you can invoke) can derive 'phenomenal consciousness'?

...

No. I do not believe phenomenal consciousness (or access consciousness or any flavor of consciousness whatsoever) is constructible by combining only the physical properties of systems.
But I do not believe that science supports the idea that a prior phenomenal consciousness making conscious observations is required for these physical properties to emerge in the first place.
By the way, can you clarify what you mean by access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness so that we are clear on the terms?

 

[rational experiences]

O God the stone planet in science existed CREATED.

O God the stone planet, as thought upon by HE, the male human....so first of all a male places supposition of his owned self into that thought....plus all of his brothers as humans who agreed....so invented a greater conscious thesis.

Then said
O God the created planet, became a Creator. And released like a male can, another substance out of its body to incept. How it was actually explained.....self conscious bio comparisons....yet the bodies are nothing alike.

O God the body, incepted the spirits of the gases, yet they are unknown to his research as space, the mystery, cold emptiness and pressure....not owner of a hot history...or a light history, cooled and converted those gases.

Cooling he says converts into higher states.

So he knew that heat de evolves forms into lower states.

If you came out from somewhere else as a conscious human being.....our Father and said you were the Creator of God.....actually as a thinker what would that entail.

A cosmological story about how the bodies got put into the state....changed/converted and created. Lots of stories.

So then you would have to claim, that as all the natural bodies existed before you did, you had to have come from a higher place, to inherit a lower life form.

Stating, I came out of the eternal body...for having caused separation, spiritually from the source...and owned karmic consequence.

Thinking about how GOD O the stone planet, and then its evolving gases, had returned and hence affected the higher eternal body from which the body creation had been released to own spatial separation.

How it was taught...thinking back and forth about conditions of realization.

Which then brought you male self....stuck on a planet that you did not want to be living trapped on....into becoming the scientist, inventor of a machine to force separation again from God so you could return into spirit.

Yet you owned no status to cause a higher state...so lied to yourself.

How this story came to be told...and why science is and always was, against and versus spirituality and also spiritual themes about where we came from.

For if you have to accept that science is wrong....then science never owned the reason for why creation existed.

 

[atanu]

No. I do not believe phenomenal consciousness (or access consciousness or any flavor of consciousness whatsoever) is constructible by combining only the physical properties of systems.

Okay. We agree. Thus a physical model would not bring up intelligent human beings.

But I do not believe that science supports the idea that a prior phenomenal consciousness making conscious observations is required for these physical properties to emerge in the first place.

I differ on this point. We at least accept that information exchange and knowledge of the state differences in partitions is key to obtain reasonable match to the preferred observations -- as we saw in the paper cited by you.

I do not use the definition of 'consciousness' that some scientists of physicalist belief use: "Consciousness is all that we experience" (Kristopher Koch). The idealism's definition is that all experiences occur in consciousness and it is the ability to discern, feel, and imagine. The 'information exchange and its knowledge' is the ability to discern the 'state'. In a modern analytical psychological language, it is called access consciousness. My position is that the access consciousness is built into nature. Else how nature enforces the natural rules that we have uncovered? How halflife decay is maintained?

In short, I consider this a mark of consciousness 'Changing of environment state due to interaction and corresponding information transfer constitutes a sufficient condition for measurement.'

By the way, can you clarify what you mean by access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness so that we are clear on the terms?

Sure. As proposed by Ned Block in 1995 ‘Phenomenal consciousness is experience; the phenomenally conscious aspect of a state is what it is like to be in that state. The mark of access-consciousness, by contrast, is availability for use in reasoning and rationally guiding speech and action'.

We can theoretically induce the 'access consciousness' into computers through comprehensive algorithms. But we cannot tell another how it feels to have an orgasm (phenomenal).

...

 

[rational experiences]

Okay. We agree. Thus a physical moel would not bring up intelligent human beings.



I differ on this point. We at least accept that information exchange and knowledge of of the difference is key to obtain reasonable match to the preferred observations -- as we saw in the paper cited by you.

I do not use the definition of 'consciousness' that some scientists of physicalist belief use "Consciousness is all that we experience" (Kristopher Koch). The idealism's definition is that consciousness all experiences occur in consciousness and it is the ability to discern, feel, and imagine. The 'information exchange and its knowledge' is the ability to discern the 'state'. In a modern analytical psychological language, it is called access consciousness. My position is that the access consciousness is built into nature. Else how nature enforces the natural rules that we have uncovered? How halflife decay is maintained?



Sure. As proposed by Ned Block in 1995 ‘Phenomenal consciousness is experience; the phenomenally conscious aspect of a state is what it is like to be in that state. The mark of access-consciousness, by contrast, is availability for use in reasoning and rationally guiding speech and action'.

We can theoretically induce the 'access consciousness' into computers through comprehensive algorithms. But we cannot tell another ow it feels to have an orgasm (phenomenal).

...

Humans are not machines.....humans however are a bio designer who invented and control the machines by being the operator, thinker designer of the state a machine.

First all studies are done on the bio life by medical study of the bio life. The machine did not apply any of those bio studies...medical science did.

You then built the machine as the bio life designer.....as based on awareness in vision....vision is the past. You live in the present.

You then build/design and own and operate the machine by your own bio conscious volition.....on all known studied past visions....the past of a human life is human death.

You then communicate/attack life including your own self...without realization that you removed your own higher life to be enabled to make machine contacts by the ATMOSPHERIC gases...which are not machines.

No atmosphere, no bio life.

No atmosphere no ability to build a machine...for God sure did not do it...as a planet sitting in the state space without an atmosphere.

If you did not build the machines you would not in any thought or condition believe that a machine owns some form of bio contact...yet you do...only because to try to force contact, you attack us FIRST. Why you are a consummate liar.

 

[atanu]

@sayak83

In support of my aforesaid position, I quote the following two, first, reference for 'it from bit' quote of JA Wheeler in the paper cited by you and second, the actual passage of 'it from bit' from JA Wheeler.

1. Quantum theory of the classical: quantum jumps, Born’s Rule and objective classical reality via quantum Darwinism

This interdependence of existence and information was very much in evidence in this paper. Stability, in spite of the (deliberate or accidental) information transfer, led to preferred pointer states, and is the essence of einselection. Entanglement deprives local states of information (which is transferred to correlations) and forces one to describe these local states in probabilistic terms, leading to Born’s Rule. Robust existence emerges (‘it from many bits’, to paraphrase Wheeler) through quantum Darwinism. The selective proliferation of information makes it immune to measurements, and allows einselected states to be found out indirectly—without endangering their existence.​

2. It from bit?

What exactly did JA Wheeler's mean by 'it from bit' in his paper published in 1989?

....."It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at the bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe."​

John Wheeler's full paper is linked below.

https://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pd

Please recall that Linde refers to the 'Participatory Universe' concept in his paper and his lectures.
...

I am often surprised that some physicists of today cannot appreciate the fact (or they willfully ignore the fact) that in the last analysis, it is we who pose the yes-no question, our constructed equipment merely register the outcomes.

Wheeler in his paper, by-passes the question of consciousness, consciously replacing it with 'communication' for reasons enclosed below.

Spoiler: Consciousness and Communication as per John Wheeler

Fourth clue: "Consciousness". We have traveled what may seem a dizzying path. First, elementary quantum phenomenon brought to a close by an irreversible act of amplification. Second, the resulting information expressed in the form of bits. Third, this information used by observer-participants — via communication — to establish meaning. Fourth, from the past through the billeniurns to come, so many observer-participants, so many bits, so much exchange of information, as to build what we call existence.

Doesn't this it-from-bit view of existence seek to elucidate the physical world, about which we know something, in terms of an entity about which we know almost nothing, consciousness [134-137]? And doesn't Marie Sklodowska Curie tell us, "Physics deals with things, not people?" Using such and such equipment, making such and such a measurement, I get such and such a number. Who I am has nothing to do with this finding. Or does it? Am I sleepwalking [138, 139]? Or am I one of those poor souls without the critical power to save himself from pathological science [140-142]?

Under such circumstances any claim to have "measured" something falls flat until it can be checked out with one's fellows. Checked how? Morton White re- minds us [143] how the community applies its tests of credibility, and in this con- nection quotes analyses by Chauncey Wright, Josiah Royce and Charles Saunders Peirce [144]. Parmenides of Elea [145] (« 515 B.C.- 450+ B.C.) may tell us that "What is... is identical with the thought that recognizes it." We, however, steer clear of the issues connected with "consciousness." The line between the uncon- scious and the conscious begins to fade [146] in our day as computers evolve and develop — as mathematics has — level upon level upon level of logical structure. We may someday have to enlarge the scope of what we mean by a "who". This granted, we continue to accept — as essential part of the concept of it from bit — F011esdal's guideline [124], "Meaning is the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." What shall we say of a view of existence [147] that appears, if not anthropomorphic in its use of the word "who," still overly cen-

tered on life and consciousness? It would seem more reasonable to dismiss for the present the semantic overtones of "who" and explore and exploit the insights to be won from the phrases, "communication" and "communication employed to establish meaning."

F011esdaTs statement supplies, not an answer, but the doorway to new questions. For example, man has not yet learned how to communicate with ant. When he does, will the questions put to the world around by the ant and the answers that he elicits contribute their share, too, to the establishment of meaning? As another issue associated with communication, we have yet to learn how to draw the line between a communication network that is closed, or parochial, and one that is open. And how to use that difference to distinguish between reality and poker — or another game [148, 149] — so intense as to appear more real than reality. No term in F011esdal's statement posses greater challenge to reflection than "communication,"
descriptor of a domain of investigation [150-152] that enlarges in sophistication with each passing year.

...

 

[Polymath257]

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'll tell you what. Find *any* textbook on quantum mechanics that says *anything* about consciousness as a requirement to do QM. I can suggest a number of very good texts on the subject, including ones that go pretty deeply into the theory of measurement, yet NONE of them say anything about conscious observers.

Now, you will be able to find any number of popular accounts of QM that make all sorts of woo-woo claims. But those are uniformly misunderstandings of QM, often as written by journalists, and not part of the actual theory.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you provided a good summary. In a nutshell, I think the paper says that the environment in which a system is immersed in is constantly "measuring" the system countless number of times, and out of this innumerable micro-measurement type interactiobs, the classical property values, that we traditionally characterize the system's reality by, emergent. So reality is emergent from system-environment interactions and does not exist without such interactions.

That is the standard understanding of decoherence theory, yes. The environment, because of its interactions, provides 'super-selection' rules that determine the possibilities of the smaller quantum system.

No *conscious* observer is required to 'collapse the wave function' since even very simple interactions can do exactly that. For example, in space, the background radiation alone is enough to collapse the location of a dust particle in a fraction of a second. For something the size of the moon, the 'wave function' is, essentially, always collapsed.

 

[sayak83]

Okay. We agree. Thus a physical model would not bring up intelligent human beings.



I differ on this point. We at least accept that information exchange and knowledge of the state differences in partitions is key to obtain reasonable match to the preferred observations -- as we saw in the paper cited by you.

I do not use the definition of 'consciousness' that some scientists of physicalist belief use: "Consciousness is all that we experience" (Kristopher Koch). The idealism's definition is that all experiences occur in consciousness and it is the ability to discern, feel, and imagine. The 'information exchange and its knowledge' is the ability to discern the 'state'. In a modern analytical psychological language, it is called access consciousness. My position is that the access consciousness is built into nature. Else how nature enforces the natural rules that we have uncovered? How halflife decay is maintained?

In short, I consider this a mark of consciousness 'Changing of environment state due to interaction and corresponding information transfer constitutes a sufficient condition for measurement.'



Sure. As proposed by Ned Block in 1995 ‘Phenomenal consciousness is experience; the phenomenally conscious aspect of a state is what it is like to be in that state. The mark of access-consciousness, by contrast, is availability for use in reasoning and rationally guiding speech and action'.

We can theoretically induce the 'access consciousness' into computers through comprehensive algorithms. But we cannot tell another how it feels to have an orgasm (phenomenal).

...

I do not use the terms consciousness the way you use.
For me (and I think most of science), phenomenal consciousness (what is it like to be an X? The inner subjective experience of being an X) is prior to access-consciousness (the ability of an entity who has subjective experiences to be aware of having these experiences and to able to express their awareness of having them in thinking and speech type acts). Thus I would say, for example, that many simple animals (like a fish) has phenomenal consciousness but not access consciousness. Thus "things" that merely change states or report or process data without having a subjective phenomenal inner state of being are not access-conscious either.

 

[sayak83]

@sayak83

In support of my aforesaid position, I quote the following two, first, reference for 'it from bit' quote of JA Wheeler in the paper cited by you and second, the actual passage of 'it from bit' from JA Wheeler.

1. Quantum theory of the classical: quantum jumps, Born’s Rule and objective classical reality via quantum Darwinism

This interdependence of existence and information was very much in evidence in this paper. Stability, in spite of the (deliberate or accidental) information transfer, led to preferred pointer states, and is the essence of einselection. Entanglement deprives local states of information (which is transferred to correlations) and forces one to describe these local states in probabilistic terms, leading to Born’s Rule. Robust existence emerges (‘it from many bits’, to paraphrase Wheeler) through quantum Darwinism. The selective proliferation of information makes it immune to measurements, and allows einselected states to be found out indirectly—without endangering their existence.​

2. It from bit?

What exactly did JA Wheeler's mean by 'it from bit' in his paper published in 1989?

....."It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at the bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe."​

John Wheeler's full paper is linked below.

https://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pd

Please recall that Linde refers to the 'Participatory Universe' concept in his paper and his lectures.
...

I am often surprised that some physicists of today cannot appreciate the fact (or they willfully ignore the fact) that in the last analysis, it is we who pose the yes-no question, our constructed equipment merely register the outcomes.

Wheeler in his paper, by-passes the question of consciousness, consciously replacing it with 'communication' for reasons enclosed below.

Spoiler: Consciousness and Communication as per John Wheeler

Fourth clue: "Consciousness". We have traveled what may seem a dizzying path. First, elementary quantum phenomenon brought to a close by an irreversible act of amplification. Second, the resulting information expressed in the form of bits. Third, this information used by observer-participants — via communication — to establish meaning. Fourth, from the past through the billeniurns to come, so many observer-participants, so many bits, so much exchange of information, as to build what we call existence.

Doesn't this it-from-bit view of existence seek to elucidate the physical world, about which we know something, in terms of an entity about which we know almost nothing, consciousness [134-137]? And doesn't Marie Sklodowska Curie tell us, "Physics deals with things, not people?" Using such and such equipment, making such and such a measurement, I get such and such a number. Who I am has nothing to do with this finding. Or does it? Am I sleepwalking [138, 139]? Or am I one of those poor souls without the critical power to save himself from pathological science [140-142]?

Under such circumstances any claim to have "measured" something falls flat until it can be checked out with one's fellows. Checked how? Morton White re- minds us [143] how the community applies its tests of credibility, and in this con- nection quotes analyses by Chauncey Wright, Josiah Royce and Charles Saunders Peirce [144]. Parmenides of Elea [145] (« 515 B.C.- 450+ B.C.) may tell us that "What is... is identical with the thought that recognizes it." We, however, steer clear of the issues connected with "consciousness." The line between the uncon- scious and the conscious begins to fade [146] in our day as computers evolve and develop — as mathematics has — level upon level upon level of logical structure. We may someday have to enlarge the scope of what we mean by a "who". This granted, we continue to accept — as essential part of the concept of it from bit — F011esdal's guideline [124], "Meaning is the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." What shall we say of a view of existence [147] that appears, if not anthropomorphic in its use of the word "who," still overly cen-

tered on life and consciousness? It would seem more reasonable to dismiss for the present the semantic overtones of "who" and explore and exploit the insights to be won from the phrases, "communication" and "communication employed to establish meaning."

F011esdaTs statement supplies, not an answer, but the doorway to new questions. For example, man has not yet learned how to communicate with ant. When he does, will the questions put to the world around by the ant and the answers that he elicits contribute their share, too, to the establishment of meaning? As another issue associated with communication, we have yet to learn how to draw the line between a communication network that is closed, or parochial, and one that is open. And how to use that difference to distinguish between reality and poker — or another game [148, 149] — so intense as to appear more real than reality. No term in F011esdal's statement posses greater challenge to reflection than "communication,"
descriptor of a domain of investigation [150-152] that enlarges in sophistication with each passing year.

...

I think that the paper I cited was simply using what has now become a popular catchphrase "it-from-bit" to make the sentence more interesting and was not using the word in the metaphysical sense of Wheeler's original paper, which is not accepted by most scientists.
Scientists do not consider the presence of conscious observers as necessary for physical phenomena simply because 99.9999% of universe do not have any conscious observers observing anything and the physics has been going on there in its own merry way for the last 12 billion years. Indeed the success of the decoherence and einselection theory is that it explains the results of quantum systems in terms of its interaction with its physical environment without having to hide behind the vague term "observation". That being done, I don't see what is the need to do anything more. Can you explain?

 

[rational experiences]

I do not use the terms consciousness the way you use.
For me (and I think most of science), phenomenal consciousness (what is it like to be an X? The inner subjective experience of being an X) is prior to access-consciousness (the ability of an entity who has subjective experiences to be aware of having these experiences and to able to express their awareness of having them in thinking and speech type acts). Thus I would say, for example, that many simple animals (like a fish) has phenomenal consciousness but not access consciousness. Thus "things" that merely change states or report or process data without having a subjective phenomenal inner state of being are not access-conscious either.

Yet your consciousness owns non conscious history, from sperm and an ovary...and then as a growing human into an adult, human pre owned life body communications to your self presence.

Adults make all these claims not sperm and an ovary, from where you personally emerge from.

And then consciousness claims thesis about thinking about when nothing existed, which is a fallacy for no such state is being expressed. When everything does exist, you cannot just pretend it does not, for you conscious awareness is based on existence, not non existence.

 

[sayak83]

Yet your consciousness owns non conscious history, from sperm and an ovary...and then as a growing human into an adult, human pre owned life body communications to your self presence.

Adults make all these claims not sperm and an ovary, from where you personally emerge from.

And then consciousness claims thesis about thinking about when nothing existed, which is a fallacy for no such state is being expressed. When everything does exist, you cannot just pretend it does not, for you conscious awareness is based on existence, not non existence.

My consciousness is too primitive to unravel the meaning of your profound words.

 

[atanu]

I'll tell you what. Find *any* textbook on quantum mechanics that says *anything* about consciousness as a requirement to do QM. I can suggest a number of very good texts on the subject, including ones that go pretty deeply into the theory of measurement, yet NONE of them say anything about conscious observers.

Now, you will be able to find any number of popular accounts of QM that make all sorts of woo-woo claims. But those are uniformly misunderstandings of QM, often as written by journalists, and not part of the actual theory.

Hello, @Polymath257 my respected and learned friend, I know that. But welcome. I humbly state that you misconstrue the purpose of the thread. I am not trying to prove the woo. I am not proposing and arguing for ‘quantum consciousness’. I think that is the woo.

In this thread, I require your help and patience. I am requesting that. Let me re-introduce the purpose. We are accustomed to examining and interpreting the scientific data from the perspective of realism-materialism. We start axiomatically with the understanding that the universe is constituted of discrete objects, some of which are endowed with the power to know, think, feel, and imagine -arisen epiphenomenally.

In this thread, I request my learned friends @sayak83 and @Polymath257 (and any other willing to be friendly) to participate in an exercise to relook at the physics data, assuming an alternative worldview as axiomatic. The view essentially entails a ‘non-dual conscious existence’. The purpose is not to create an adversarial stage where opponents kill each other. I wish this discussion to be e open and friendly. But I will understand if @Polymath257 or @sayak83 do not wish to participate.

So, let me start.

In my understanding, the physical rules that we have unravelled always indicate that there is a kind of access consciousness intrinsic to the universe. For example, if I drop a ball from a height, I can calculate the state of the ball in terms of position and momentum. But how does nature implement this? Similarly, how does nature know to maintain the half-life of decay?

With the coming of Relativity and Quantum mechanics, more mysteries have been added and not reduced. Relativity has made mass-energy and space-time the conjugate parameters. Quantum mechanics has compelled us to think in terms of holism, information exchange and ‘observation’ and has removed the plank of certainty from ‘realism’. So, I request my learned friends to examine physics data in light of what I present below. I request for patience and openness if you choose to participate.

Below, first, I reproduce just one passage from Isha Upanishad about the non-dual person that envelopes all knowledge. Then I will briefly define consciousness from the non-dual perspective.

Isha Upanishad
16. O nourishes, only seer, controller of all-o illumining Sun, fountain of life for all creatures-withhold withhold thy light, gather together thy rays. May I behold through thy grace thy most blessed form. The Being that dwells therein-even that Being am I.

translated by Swami Prabhavanand and Frederick Manchester. The Upanishads: Breath of the Eternal (p. 5). Kindle Edition.​

In another Upanishad, the text is "The person in the eye is the same as in the sun". The person - the seer/knower is non-dual. The person that is in my eye is the same person that is in sun. The Person-consciousness envelops all that be known directly or through the report. This worldview is not the same as the one we are commonly accustomed to — the view that the universe comprises discrete objects, some of which are ‘conscious thinkers, feelers, and imaginers. In the Vedantic worldview, OTOH, the truth is non-dual whole and knowing is the intrinsic nature of the whole.

@sayak will remember that we had a discussion about the Chandogya Upanishad verse.

So, according to this worldview, the truth is non-dual and is of the nature of consciousness that pervades all that is known directly or through the report. Consciousness has five essential characteristics as below.

First. Consciousness, chit, is not the mind or the body. Although we feel that consciousness is a property of the body, Consciousness as per Upanishads is distinct and illumines the mind and the body and all organs within the mind. Consciousness is not a part of our body or our mind. On this point, the teaching of Vedanta is different from that of science, which says that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of bodily processes.

Second. Consciousness pervades and illumines the mind and body enabling the body-mind to function.

Third. Consciousness is not limited by the mind and body. It exists apart from the mind and body. it is not limited to this particular brain or by the body. Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of brain-body.

Fourth. Consciousness is known in the functioning of the mind and body. Through the functioning of the mind and body, we can know consciousness

Fifth. Without the mind and body, consciousness although present is not reflected, due to lack of contrast.​

So? I envisage that I may get a long list of 'why it is absurd', but if the list is devoid of any inbuilt metaphysical bias, it will be welcome.
...

 

[atanu]

I think that the paper I cited was simply using what has now become a popular catchphrase "it-from-bit" to make the sentence more interesting and was not using the word in the metaphysical sense of Wheeler's original paper, which is not accepted by most scientists.
Scientists do not consider the presence of conscious observers as necessary for physical phenomena simply because 99.9999% of universe do not have any conscious observers observing anything and the physics has been going on there in its own merry way for the last 12 billion years. Indeed the success of the decoherence and einselection theory is that it explains the results of quantum systems in terms of its interaction with its physical environment without having to hide behind the vague term "observation". That being done, I don't see what is the need to do anything more. Can you explain?

Your definition of 'conscious observer' is obviously different from mine. Consciousness in my worldview is non-dual and unborn. You obviously are beginning with the common belief of consciousness as an epiphenomenon.

Please see post 57 and If you wish please participate.

 

[rational experiences]

Every living human today is not their parent, self owned human adult life body.

Our conscious self goes back to 2 variable life forms....sperm from a male adult body and an ovary from a female adult body.

Never are we the parents. We become our owned self. However the pre lived human adult conscious awareness is lived, it is recorded and it communicates its self adult identifications to us....so we are affected by 2 other human lives in their owned experiences.....naturally.

Natural is first and natural human self presence is origin to self presence.

Life in science of God O the planet stone/its gases of heavenly history said all life is shared equally in the light atmosphere in a holy water/Tree of Life oxygenated atmosphere heavenly mass....side by side.

So first we lived paired as a human side by side. As does animals...as side by side....then we live side by side with animals and side by side with Nature.

We are all equal life owners on the same O one planet in the same atmospheric condition...….science said the meaning of which is diversity.

Acceptance....you are a cosmic Observer only because of the presence of God...what information you do not use nor infer to.

Reasoning....I pretend first in science that nothing exists.

Reasoning....I can use this pretence as nothing in space does exist.....I am informed...therefore I am not the consciousness that I coerce self to be.

I am informed.

Then reason, so cosmic observer due to the presence of God....why do you impose nothing in science as compared to God, presence?

I never wanted to live trapped on God...why I associate being trapped to the UFO Sun radiation cosmological history.....and why I then inferred what I could reverse and shift natural history, as information.

As the reasoning Sun UFO to Earth said it could remove/transport the physical body of God into the state of nothing.

Why science warns self....you are trying to give life on Earth to the machine and not live or own bio life existence with God.

Science is Satanism......God was natural science laws in the presence of the created existing planet.

 

[Polymath257]

Hello, @Polymath257 my respected and learned friend, I know that. But welcome. I humbly state that you misconstrue the purpose of the thread. I am not trying to prove the woo. I am not proposing and arguing for ‘quantum consciousness’. I think that is the woo.

In this thread, I require your help and patience. I am requesting that. Let me re-introduce the purpose. We are accustomed to examining and interpreting the scientific data from the perspective of realism-materialism. We start axiomatically with the understanding that the universe is constituted of discrete objects, some of which are endowed with the power to know, think, feel, and imagine -arisen epiphenomenally.

In this thread, I request my learned friends @sayak83 and @Polymath257 (and any other willing to be friendly) to participate in an exercise to relook at the physics data, assuming an alternative worldview as axiomatic. The view essentially entails a ‘non-dual conscious existence’. The purpose is not to create an adversarial stage where opponents kill each other. I wish this discussion to be e open and friendly. But I will understand if @Polymath257 or @sayak83 do not wish to participate.

So, let me start.

In my understanding, the physical rules that we have unravelled always indicate that there is a kind of access consciousness intrinsic to the universe. For example, if I drop a ball from a height, I can calculate the state of the ball in terms of position and momentum. But how does nature implement this? Similarly, how does nature know to maintain the half-life of decay?

With the coming of Relativity and Quantum mechanics, more mysteries have been added and not reduced. Relativity has made mass-energy and space-time the conjugate parameters. Quantum mechanics has compelled us to think in terms of holism, information exchange and ‘observation’ and has removed the plank of certainty from ‘realism’. So, I request my learned friends to examine physics data in light of what I present below. I request for patience and openness if you choose to participate.

Below, first, I reproduce just one passage from Isha Upanishad about the non-dual person that envelopes all knowledge. Then I will briefly define consciousness from the non-dual perspective.

Isha Upanishad
16. O nourishes, only seer, controller of all-o illumining Sun, fountain of life for all creatures-withhold withhold thy light, gather together thy rays. May I behold through thy grace thy most blessed form. The Being that dwells therein-even that Being am I.

translated by Swami Prabhavanand and Frederick Manchester. The Upanishads: Breath of the Eternal (p. 5). Kindle Edition.​

In another Upanishad, the text is "The person in the eye is the same as in the sun". The person - the seer/knower is non-dual. The person that is in my eye is the same person that is in sun. The Person-consciousness envelops all that be known directly or through the report. This worldview is not the same as the one we are commonly accustomed to — the view that the universe comprises discrete objects, some of which are ‘conscious thinkers, feelers, and imaginers. In the Vedantic worldview, OTOH, the truth is non-dual whole and knowing is the intrinsic nature of the whole.

@sayak will remember that we had a discussion about the Chandogya Upanishad verse.

So, according to this worldview, the truth is non-dual and is of the nature of consciousness that pervades all that is known directly or through the report. Consciousness has five essential characteristics as below.

First. Consciousness, chit, is not the mind or the body. Although we feel that consciousness is a property of the body, Consciousness as per Upanishads is distinct and illumines the mind and the body and all organs within the mind. Consciousness is not a part of our body or our mind. On this point, the teaching of Vedanta is different from that of science, which says that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of bodily processes.

Second. Consciousness pervades and illumines the mind and body enabling the body-mind to function.

Third. Consciousness is not limited by the mind and body. It exists apart from the mind and body. it is not limited to this particular brain or by the body. Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of brain-body.

Fourth. Consciousness is known in the functioning of the mind and body. Through the functioning of the mind and body, we can know consciousness

Fifth. Without the mind and body, consciousness although present is not reflected, due to lack of contrast.​

So? I envisage that I may get a long list of 'why it is absurd', but if the list is devoid of any inbuilt metaphysical bias, it will be welcome.
...

What useful insights would this theory give?

How would we distinguish it from the alternative theory where matter has properties (and that is why balls drop and atoms decay)?

In what sense is the sun conscious? The word 'conscious' seems to be a strange word to use in this context.

How would we detect this consciousness that is not limited to mind and body?

In what sense does this consciousness 'illuminate'? The word 'iluminate' is usually associated with light, which is a known physical phenomenon.

You make five statements about consciousness. How can any of these be tested?

You propose this as a new 'axiom system'. In what ways is it superior to other axiom systems?


Well, that should get us started.