This site requires Javascript to function properly - please enable Javascript in your browser

Through Conscious Beings

community » Discussions » Category » Scattershooting,Ramblings & Life » Discussion » Through Conscious Beings

Category: Scattershooting,Ramblings & Life

Via: rose-gardener • 11 years ago • 35 comments

" ...

we human beings are able to grasp at least some of nature's secrets. We have cracked part of the cosmic code. Why this should be, just why homo sapiens should carry the spark of rationality that provides the key to the universe, is a deep enigma. We, who are children of the universe animated stardust can nevertheless reflect on the nature of that same universe, even to the extend of glimpsing the rules on which it runs. How we have become linked into this cosmic dimension is a mystery. Yet the linkage cannot be denied.

What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here. "

Paul Davies - Physicist, Astrobiologist ...

Just thought I'd put this "out there" .

Tags

[]

Freshman Silent

Miss_Construed 11 years ago

I'm not a fan of the "life is too complex to explain" argument.

IMO, any scientist that stops asking questions and starts pontificating on "answers"just became a theologist.

Professor Quiet

Larry Hampton 11 years ago

We continue to ask the same questions and seek the same solutions that we always have. Ourexistence seems to obviously be part and parcel of the whole. No matter how long or how far we search, the answers still lie within ourselves.

Professor Quiet

Larry Hampton 11 years ago

Thanks Bob!

Just think , with all of ouracquiredknowledge through the ages, our choice to use that knowledge to promote life instead of death, is the hallmark of wisdom. Can you imagine where we would be as a species if our technology was used to build and create instead of destroy and kill?

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

No matter how long or how far we search, the answers still lie within ourselves.

I like that as well.

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

Once upon a time, weapons were for hunting.

Then some genius realized that there might be another use...

That one's pretty good as well. Probably didn't take the "genius" long though...

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

Well ... as long as I'm putting it out there ... might as well continue

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

Yeah ... what was it Richard Feynman said??

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.

That should keep us all humble.

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

So much to think about ... so much to be conscious of ...

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

It's a paradigm shift - that's for sure.

The thing is ... the more they experiment - the more they discover that there is no such thing as an objective outside reality, that consciousness is intricately entwined with "reality".

Just putting that out there ...

Freshman Silent

Sparrow 11 years ago

Miss_Diagnosed, that is the shortest, best explanation I've seen in a long time. Very well stated!

Freshman Silent

Miss_Construed 11 years ago

Thanks Sparrow

Freshman Silent

Miss_Construed 11 years ago

Someone needs to kill that damn cat already :D

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

Ahh ... but even if the damn cat was killed - it wouldn't matter until someone opened the box :D

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

Through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole....

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

What is the true nature of reality? Let's take a poll.

Seriously. The deep questions raised by quantum theory have so troubled so many thinkers for so long that a trio of physicists decided to settle things Gallup style.

At a conference called "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality," held in July 2011, they offered up a survey: In 16 questions, they asked their colleagues -- a group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers -- to report their feelings on the very foundations of physics. If this seems ambitious, don't fret: It was multiple choice......

... the ... most literal take on quantum physics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, is what you're most likely to encounter in a physics classroom. Yet it has rankled physicists as eminent as Albert Einstein. To these thinkers, the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to an argument that the world ceases to exist the moment you close your eyes, or that page 100 of the novel on your nightstand remains blank until the moment you turn over page 99. In other words: It just doesn't smell right.

So how did it fare in the poll? It came out on top, with 42 percent of the votes. The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent . Close behind in third, at 18 percent, was that sci-fi favorite, the many-worlds interpretation, according to which every quantum measurement actually splits the universe into multiple, parallel universes.

"Other" and "no preferred interpretation" tied for fourth place, with 12 percent apiece. (Yes, eagle-eyed readers, something fishy is going on with the math here: Respondents were allowed to vote for more than one choice.)

You might say, then, that the Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline. Though Copenhagen has been around since the 1920s, the many-worlds idea didn't arise until the 1950s, and quantum information theory is an even later entry into the race, suggesting that physicists are hungry for new ways of thinking about quantum mechanics .

The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent .

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. ~ Max Planck

The debate within the science community continues. The Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline ... time (and more experimenting) will tell... Don't let anyone tell you physics is boring.

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

Fascinating stuff!

Indeed it is ... you should check out this interview with Bruce Rosenblum . A few excerpts follow:

I think the mystery of quantum mechanics is important for physicists to understand, or to be aware of at least. If physicists dont address the quantum mysteries and honestly tell others what we know and what we dont knowwhat is mysteriousthen we concede the field to the purveyors of pseudoscience. In any event, the Quantum Enigma course, and later our book, tells of something generally avoided in physics courses. The Quantum Enigma course has been going on for 15 years. Its actually the most popular course in our physics department with the students. Faculty, by and large, just ignore it. But that is not so unusual. In a research university most faculty pay little attention to courses they themselves are not teaching.

.....

quantum mechanics says unbelievable things about us, our consciousness, our free will, and the nature of our human involvement with physical reality. Its beyond merely counterintuitive. Its baffling. Unbelievable, really. It presents us with unsolved enigmas.

There are actually three enigmas. I can identify them with the famous objections Einstein had to quantum mechanics. First, theres Einsteins famous statement, God does not play dice with the universe. Quantum mechanics says theres a randomness underlying everything. Einstein didnt like that. Nevertheless, he eventually accepted it. But when people, including physicists, want to quote Einsteins objection to quantum mechanics, they usually quote that one, because its easy to understand. The other enigmas are the tough ones; they can sound ridiculous.

The second enigma: Einstein, only half-jokingly, said, I cannot accept quantum mechanics, because I believe the moon is there, even when Im not looking. Quantum mechanics seems to say things dont exist when we are not observing themat least no property of a thing exists before its observation. And whats a thing beyond the sum of its properties? We can demonstrate, in fact, that if you look and find an isolated atom, any isolated object in fact, in some particular place, it wasnt there before you found it there. You created the reality of its having been there. At least you could have chosen to create a different prior realitya reality in which it wasnt there. Einstein didnt like that. A denial of unobserved physical reality is harder to accept than mere randomness.

The third enigma: Einstein said, I cant accept quantum mechanics because it involves spooky actions at a distance. Quantum mechanics says that what somebody chooses to do here can influence what happens far away without any physical force passing between them. Einstein did not like this at all, especially because the influence supposedly propagated infinitely fast. This is what his famous EPR paper was about. In 1935, when that paper was sent to Niels Bohr, Bohrs assistant said, It came down on us like a bolt out of the blue. Bohr, a founder of quantum mechanics, and the principal architect of the Copenhagen interpretation, had not realized that quantum mechanics involved these spooky actions, that we now call entanglements. Bohrs response was that spooky actions do exist, but he called them influences. Theyre there even though no physical force is involved. Einstein thought the physics community would reject that claim, but they were too busy using quantum mechanics to worry about mere philosophy. There seemed no way to ever resolve the difference between the views of Einstein and Bohr. It seemed a philosophical issue.

About 30 years later, John Bell showed that whether or not these spooky actions existed was not just a matter of philosophical outlook; it was actually something that could be tested. And then a young post-doc, John Clauser, figured out a way to test it. Bell hadnt expected it to be tested for decades and was surprised when someone figured out a way to actually do the experiment. Clausers experiment showed that Einsteins spooky actions did indeed exist. He expected the experiment was going to show that they did not exist, and therefore quantum mechanics was wrong. That would have established the theorys first-ever incorrect predictionperhaps worth a Nobel Prize. So he was disappointed.

So, to summarize, Einsteins two serious objections to quantum theory are that the theory says: 1) that observation creates reality and 2) that there are instantaneous interactions between arbitrarily remote events, interactions not caused by a physical force. The experimental demonstrations in the book displaying why the theory says these things are absolutely do-able. I like to say demonstrations rather than experiments because the outcomes are all known. The almost unbelievable results can be displayed without ever talking about quantum theory. The actual physical results we tell of are completely undisputed. You can look at these undisputed results and draw your own conclusions on the extent to which consciousness is involved. You will see an enigma involving free will.

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

I agree Robert.

What really bothers me is that we are not teaching this stuff in our schools. Don't you think if we adults were honest about the real issues being debated within the scientific community, that there would be less of an opening for Creationists?

You should watch this interview: The 19-Year-Old Kid Who's Giving Creationists A Run For Their Money

It is a fantastic PBS interview. The interview does not even touch upon subject matter we've been discussing in this thread. But... as I watched the interview, I thought to myself that if we adults were honest with our students about the legitimate questions and mystery within Science ... creationism wouldn't be able to get such a hold on people.

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

It's kind of a mixed bag. This Pew Research article reveals how much of a mixed bag.

Most Americans say they are familiar with creationism and evolution, but recent polling suggests that there is some confusion about the meaning of these terms. In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life, but about the same number also said the same about evolution. Since creationism and evolution are incompatible as explanations, some portion of the public is clearly confused about the meaning of the terms.

The article is much more indepth than the snippet I quoted above. But, I chose the quote above because it goes to my overall point. There is confusion about the meaning of the terms "creationism" and "Evolution".

There is no evidence (that I know of) to support what I'm about to say, it's my own personal "take" on the matter.

Many Christians recognize the legitimacy of Science and Evolution. But they also believe that there is "more to the story", "more than meets the eye". So... they grab onto "Creationism" because that is all they are offered. Science (as typically presented) leaves no room for mystery, for "something bigger".

Science, as typically presented, is still the clockwork universe of Newton, not the dynamic reality of David Bohm

"Then there is the further question of what is the relationship of thinking to reality. As careful attention shows, thought itself is in an actual process of movement. That is to say, one can feel a sense of flow in the stream of consciousness not dissimilar to the sense of flow in the movement of matter in general. May not thought itself thus be a part of reality as a whole? But then, what could it mean for one part of reality to 'know' another, and to what extent would this be possible?"

D. Bohm, _Wholeness and the Implicate Order_, p. ix

Humans intuitively know they belong to "something more". Some use the word God, others see this "more" as the universe itself, science. There are as many ways as understanding this "something more" as there are humans to preceive reality.

For too long ... since Newton actually ... science and religion have been in conflict. Extremist religion gets a foothold because it gives people answers to questions they intuitively sense. Science (as it is currently presented in the classroom) provides only the answer of a mechanical universe where life is a mere "quirk of fate" or that WE are here as a "by-product of mindless, purposeless forces".

IMO ... when science starts being honest about the debate within its own community on the nature of reality, fundamentalism will lose its hold on people. Because there will be a way for folks to view reality without denying an intuitive feeling that they are "meant to be here"...

Sophomore Quiet

Dowser 11 years ago

I agree with someone who said, "If we are the only planet with life in the universe, or if we are but one of many planets with life in the universe-- the thought is mind-boggling." Either way you look at it, what a Miracle!

To me, finding life on other planets wouldn't upset my faith at all. If you believe that all things are possible with God, (and I do), then why would it?

Hope all of you have a great day today!

Freshman Silent

seeder Rose Gardener 11 years ago

Including the possibility that "belief in God" is innate because it has Darwinian survival advantages... I personally "believe in God"... but with a faith that allows me to wonder about self-delusion. I'm quite confident that God understands my doubts...

How right you are - on all accounts.

the problem, of course, is that the ideas involved are fairly sophisticated. I can't see them in elementary school. But basic science certainly can be started there. So there's a timing issue...

Oh ... I agree ... I don't think kids in elementary school are capable of anything near quantum physics. But ... I do think as soon as our schools start teaching about Newton then kids are also ready to learn that there is a completely different set of laws governing at the quantum level (and the basics of those laws - what non-locality is for instance).

Seeking the answers to the universe provides us with a vast array of information that comes from everyone and everything that surrounds us. If we realize we are all connected and each of us have something to give as a clue to "What Is" the puzzle pieces fall in place. Whether or not we'll know all of the answers is not the point. The point is to become life long seekers of our place in all that is our universe.

That is exactly why I feel we should be honest with our students, as early as we can. Because what is being discovered at the quantum level of reality is that we are all ONE. We are not just cogs in a clock work universe, but we are VERY LITERALLY ONE - undivided WHOLE.

That what happens to an atom on one side of the Universe can affect an atom on the other side of the Universe - instantaneously - not through any standard means of "communication".

We claim to want to raise "Critical thinkers" in our school systems, and yet we are giving them a watered down version of Science and wondering why something like Creationism has such a foothold. It's because when young students ask questions any child would ask Creationism has quick and easy (albeit false) answers.

If we were honest not just about the Newtonian reality, not just about evolution, but also about our ultimate Oneness ... then there would be a place WITHIN science to explore the mystery which EVERY human being feels.

Just think of the difference between the cold and dead clockwork Universe and the Universe that many, many scientists see ...

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. ~ Max Planck

Freshman Silent

retired military ex Republican 11 years ago

I find this reading a little hard to swallow considering the enormity of spaceits size is still being realized as our technology allows further discoveries. That we are the chosen ones if anyone or anything made a concious decision to allow us to be the epitimy of concious existance. We have a tendency to place ourself on a pedastal based on our own mythology. A thouand years from know if we havent killed ourselves all off it would be interesting on how the knowledge and evolvement of knowledge has pushed our understanding of the unemportance we play in the overall magnitude of space and existance of intelligent life or minutepartweplay in that existance.

You must be logged in to post a comment

Who is online

593 visitors