Consciousness is fundamental to reality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 09:25 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There is also no evidence that there was ever a universe devoid of consciousness. None. Zilch. Nada. The only one we know for sure exists is the one we are in now. And it is teeming with life.

There is also no evidence that there was ever a universe devoid of flying spaghetti monster.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
14-06-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 09:25 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 03:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  And yet, there is no evidence for it. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

There is also no evidence that there was ever a universe devoid of consciousness. None. Zilch. Nada. The only one we know for sure exists is the one we are in now. And it is teeming with life.

Teeming with life? Wow you're still at it with vastly insensible proclamations. Well I hope you enjoy whatever it s you think you're getting out of your perceived illusion of rocking the boat.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 10:27 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 09:25 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There is also no evidence that there was ever a universe devoid of consciousness. None. Zilch. Nada. The only one we know for sure exists is the one we are in now. And it is teeming with life.

Teeming with life? Wow you're still at it with vastly insensible proclamations. Well I hope you enjoy whatever it s you think you're getting out of your perceived illusion of rocking the boat.

Our planet is filled with life. Beyond our own solar system you can't say there is or isn't life. Because you simply don't know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 10:21 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 09:25 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There is also no evidence that there was ever a universe devoid of consciousness. None. Zilch. Nada. The only one we know for sure exists is the one we are in now. And it is teeming with life.

There is also no evidence that there was ever a universe devoid of flying spaghetti monster.

Was that supposed to be funny?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 07:59 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Sometimes I think science is bad at communication and this is why some people misunderstand concepts.

M- you've built all of this consciousness crap around misunderstood concepts and your own wishful thinking.

We all wish things were different, but accepting the reality around you is the first step to changing it for the betterment of all people.

Being stuck in a fantasy only makes matters worse

There is no 'reality without consciousness you dumbshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 11:03 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 10:21 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  There is also no evidence that there was ever a universe devoid of flying spaghetti monster.

Was that supposed to be funny?

Reductiones ad absurdum usual are.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
14-06-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 11:05 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ...
There is no 'reality without consciousness you dumbshit.

All my grandparents died before I was 10.

They are no longer conscious.

Therefore my world ceased to exist over 40 years ago.

QED.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 10:20 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 09:21 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I'm just presenting an obvious fact that consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

I think it would be better to say that the only thing we can be 100% certain about is the existence of our own consciousness. That's true.....even if the matrix (film) scenario is true, and we are nothing more than brains in vats, and all sensory input is an illusion, there is still the old "I think therefore I am" exercise that proves our own existence. Other things could still truly exist, even if we are unaware of them. It's a fallacy to claim that consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

(14-06-2015 09:21 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Without consciousness we can't be certain anything exists.

I somewhat agree, but I would go further and say that without consciousness, there is no "we".

You're taking the "brain in a vat" exercise too far. Just because everything could be an illusion, doesn't mean that everything is an illusion. You keep making this leap.

I don't think 'illusion' is the correct term do describe the reality we find ourselves in. Einstein said reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.

The interpretation that consciousness causes wave function collapse might be considered a fringe theory now, but the founders fathers of QM original interpretation of the data was that this is the case. The 'wave function' collapses from a state of potentially infinite possibilities to one real 'solid' thing. I don't see why this view is so ridiculous. It makes perfect sense to me and resolves a lot of paradoxes. The other theories in QM are that somehow all the other outcomes occur in infinite unobservable universes spraying off into infinity, and this is somehow more believable than saying consciousness (I thing we will probably never find, because the only thing doing the finding is consciousness) causes wave function collapse?

Based on this view it is easy for me to see that the universe is a construct of consciousness, all the 'stuff' in it is a construct of consciousness. To say otherwise is not in line with your own experience of this universe, because your own experience of this universe is inextricably linked with consciousness.

All the confusion as to how it could be a construct of consciousness, and how consciousness creates this universe is merely a limit of our own COGNITIVE understanding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 11:09 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 11:05 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ...
There is no 'reality without consciousness you dumbshit.

All my grandparents died before I was 10.

They are no longer conscious.

Therefore my world ceased to exist over 40 years ago.

QED.

Smartass

That is incoherent. There was consciousness before you arrived in this universe. And there will be when you die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2015, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2015 11:55 AM by ZoraPrime.)
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(14-06-2015 04:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  Interesting, but I think you utterly misunderstand the term "wave function collapse", e.g. electrons changing energy levels is not "wave function collapse".

Electrons changing energy levels is not synonymous with wavefunction collapse, but a wavefunction collapse is necessary for electrons to change energy levels. For simple models (such as when discussing the Bohr model), we often times do need need to go through the nitty-gritty of where the wavefunction collapse comes into play; it does play an important role.

Let me explain. Whenever we speak of eigenstates (i.e. characteristic states), such as those you find from the Shroedinger equation, we're specifically discussing characteristic states of energy. One important quality of energy eigenstates is that they're states of certain energy (i.e. energy is deterministic). Superposition states, on the other hand, are states of uncertain energy (i.e. energy is random). I'll define superposition states more thoroughly later.

If we want to speak of an electron changing energy levels, it's necessary for that electron to have a definite energy before and after. There's one problem though: if the wavefunction is given by a just one eigenstate, that wavefunction does not evolve in time (which is why eigenstates and stationary states are synonymous terms). So how exactly does an electron get from eigenstate A to eigenstate B so it can go from energy A to energy B.

To answer this fully, we need to define a superposition state, which is in contrast to an eigenstate. An superposition state is mathematically a weighted sum ('linear combination') of eigenstates. Physically, an electron (or anything) in a superposition state can be found in any eigenstates given in its mathematical representation upon observation. The most common example is a superposition of spin-up and spin-down. Here, when we say an electron is in a superposition of being both "up" and "down", upon observation, it'll be found to be either up or down. In this case, if we want an electron to go from energy A to energy B, it must first go through a superposition state of energy A and energy B.

So now, in order for an electron to change energy levels, it must go from eigenstate A->superposition state A and B->eigenstate B.

In order to do the first step, that is eigenstate A->superposition state A and B, the electron must be acted upon by another force (e.g. it's in the proximity of another proton so experiences a different coulomb force). The mechanism by which it happens is what's considered to be an eigenstate of an electron being acted upon by just the Coulomb force from one proton, for example, is different than what's considered to be an eigenstate of the electron being acted upon by the Coulomb force from two protons. What was once an eigenstate of just one Coulomb force is now a superposition state of two different Coulomb forces. However, superposition states, unlike eigenstates, have a wavefunction that evolves in time. This means that the probability of it being found with a particular energy, position, and momentum changes in time for a superposition state, but not for an eigenstate. Once you remove the extra agent (in this case, the extra coulumb force), the wavefunction has evolved so much in time that its wavefunction is no longer just 'eigenstate A,' but rather a superposition of many different eigenstates of the original Coulomb force. In short, the new agent (in this case, the second Coulomb force) changes the original wavefunction so much that by the time it leaves, the original wavefunction has changed from an eigenstate A to a superposition state of A and B (and probably all other energy eigenstates).

In order to do the second step, superposition state A and B->eigenstate B, you simply observe the electron and find it in that state. It sounds simple because there's so much we don't know about how exactly observation plays a role, that we can't be specific of the mechanism. The most popular mechanism, to my knowledge, is something called quantum decoherence, but that's an aside.

Anyway, I realize this is probably more information than you bargained for, but I also felt that I needed to explain why the wavefunction collapse is necessary for electrons to change energy levels.[/size]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: