The Quantum Relativity of Consciousness

[coldcreation]

Consciousness has been discussed extensively in quantum mechanics. There seemed to be no place for it in general relativity. I’m not sure a forum on cosmology and astronomy is the place for this discussion. But it’s an important one.

 

If cosmology is the study of the universe, its origin, its structure, its material content, its nest of forces, and living things are part of it, then yes, consciousness should be elaborated upon here as a physical phenomenon, and not just as a subjective (or anthropic) view of a quantum world.

 

The goal of this thread is to begin an inclusive discussion of consciousness, as forming part of a unified theory.

 

a.m. aka coldcreation

[Little Bang]

Does the possibility exist that the individual consciousness might create everything that it sees or a collective consciousness that creats everything that we see?

[infamous]

Does the possibility exist that the individual consciousness might create everything that it sees or a collective consciousness that creats everything that we see?

 

There have been experiments done that suggest a connection between a subjects mental wishes and quantum reactions. Just how these reactions occur is not presently known. Many speculate that these results are only coincidental. Evidently the jury is still out on this one.

[coldcreation]

There have been experiments done that suggest a connection between a subjects mental wishes and quantum reactions. Just how these reactions occur is not presently known. Many speculate that these results are only coincidental. Evidently the jury is still out on this one.

 

Interesting postulate infamous.

 

A relatively new MRI process called hyperscanning looks promising for future work on imaging social interactions. Check it out. Google hyperscanning. The concept is simpilar to your statement.

 

Psychophysics is in its infancy...

[coldcreation]

Does the possibility exist that the individual consciousness might create everything that it sees or a collective consciousness that creats everything that we see?

 

 

In harmony with the natural principles, Cold Creation advances detailed geometric-topological solutions for the relativity of consciousness. To do so, a distinction had to be made between two opposing viewpoints: the physical and its converse, the metaphysical.

 

The distinction contemplated between the two types of postulates comes as the first firm result yielded by this investigation. Clearly, something quite paradoxical follows from the apparent boundary condition under consideration. Our goal then, becomes to find a physical explanation for all phenomena, including those categorized as human inspiration, imagination and creativity.

 

In the present case, Cold Creation does not pretend to uncover the true formulation of the boundary condition. Rather, the boundary condition is indirect evidence that the metaphysical approach is untenable if humans are to consider themselves part of the physical universe. The metaphysical condition simply reflects our apparent inability to think of ourselves in terms relevant to nature.

 

The problem is not a disagreement concerning the reality of philosophical or speculative reasoning originating somewhere outside the physical world: it is a matter of what changes need to be made to our basic concepts of physics to include the ethereal, when consciousness is interpreted within the realm of natural principles.

 

A.M. aka Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Does the possibility exist that the individual consciousness might create everything that it sees or a collective consciousness that creats everything that we see?

 

No.

[Little Bang]

There was an experiment done on one of the science channels 6 to 12 months ago. It was sort of like the Plinko game on The Price Is Right. The device dropped one ping pong ball at time. The balls would bounce around hitting the pegs and windup in a bunch of boxes at the bottom. You would think the balls would form something resembling a pyramid, but the shape the balls took was more dependent on the individual observer and it was defferent for each observer.

[coldcreation]

There was an experiment done on one of the science channels 6 to 12 months ago. It was sort of like the Plinko game on The Price Is Right. The device dropped one ping pong ball at time. The balls would bounce around hitting the pegs and windup in a bunch of boxes at the bottom. You would think the balls would form something resembling a pyramid, but the shape the balls took was more dependent on the individual observer and it was defferent for each observer.

 

There is a big difference between a relative point of view (related to ones position and velocity), a subjective perspective (based on education, psychological profile or disposition, etc.), and one that is entirely objective.

 

Little bang, if a bear shits in the woods, would it smell if no human being was around to sniff it? Do we invent smell too?

[coldcreation]

There is a big difference between a relative point of view (related to ones position and velocity), a subjective perspective (based on education, psychological profile or disposition, etc.), and one that is entirely objective.

 

Little bang, if a bear shits in the woods, would it stink if no human being was around to sniff it? Do we invent that too?

 

The psychological insights included in Stephen Hawking’s books are illuminating. For example, he wrote in 1988: “We see the universe the way it is because we exist.” This line of reasoning is called the weak anthropic principle. “Only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question:” he continues, “Why is the universe the way we see it?” The answer is simple he suspects, “If it had been different, we would not be here!” (the strong anthropic principle).

 

That answer helps qualify how likely you are to pay court to the myth of choice. Cambridge, Hawking’s home base, leads the way in this trend, but for all of us outsiders, this is a cautionary tale. As usual with such stories, the author’s prose becomes something of an oddity, but what Hawking narrates with skill makes a great read for armchair researchers. Well, almost. His tongue seems to choke on the facts, and his questions serve only to shed light on the tragicity of his world-view. Other strains of his thought accurately mirror the times: as “evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle:” Existentialism, fundamentalism, absurdism.

 

My favorite line from Hawking came across on the airwaves recently: ”I’m not a genius like Einstein was.” (Hawking 2005, EuroNews (Cable TV) April 16 at 4:10 pm (16:10 h)).

 

I agree.

 

Coldcreation

[infamous]

 

In the present case, Cold Creation does not pretend to uncover the true formulation of the boundary condition. Rather, the boundary condition is indirect evidence that the metaphysical approach is untenable if humans are to consider themselves part of the physical universe. The metaphysical condition simply reflects our apparent inability to think of ourselves in terms relevant to nature.

 

 

 

A.M. aka Coldcreation

 

I agree coldcreation; A simple example would be the definition we humans give to the cube. The universe does not understand the cube, the universe finds expression in the sphere. This view may sound like I'm nitpicking, but on the cosmological level this statement is true. Granted that on the quantum level it can express itself in many different forms, including the cube. However when considering the shape of things universal, the sphere dominates.

[coldcreation]

I guess my main objective with the present discussion is to bring to light that there is a distinction between living things and those things in the universe that do not reproduce, that are not alive, and that possess little consciousness, if any. Illuminating the differences should help in the understading not just of life but of ouselves, of our universe, and so consciousness has to be included in the ultimate theory.

[coldcreation]

The general idea here is that there is one physical characteristic of nature that deserves far more careful appreciation than it has received—until it becomes inseparably part of the human condition—a mechanized projection of our individual persona, waiting to be recognized and identified as a substantial, ordinary, inherent, inborn, open, natural, environmental, physically real: a metric phenomenon that underlies all things.

 

It was Einstein that stressed the importance of the geometrical relations between things. It was also he who fused the prior notion of an object as an independent concept into a system together with the proper spatiotemporal structure. It was he too who noted the general view that geometry together with the totality of the physical laws can predicate the behavior of real things. And he too in a lecture at King’s College, London, 1921, who expressed in relation to the general theory of relativity…“the physical properties of space are affected by ponderable matter.”

 

I see this idea not as forming a polished end of the ultimate theory, but as providing the best possible explanation as to the difference between animate and inanimate systems or things - not as much from a biological perspective as from a topological point of view - a clarification for the physical mechanism behind consciousness, against which other theoretical propositions must be tested.

 

We simply look at tangible options in an open-minded way before coming to final conclusions. This elemental line of reasoning circumvents dogmatism and despotic attitudes that have led science off course so many times in the past. It also means Cold Creation is a work in progress, one that leaves open many avenues for future scientific development, while restricting the degree of freedom, i.e., within the range of natural laws.

 

A.M. Coldcreation

[infamous]

It was Einstein that stressed the importance of the geometrical relations between things. It was also he who fused the prior notion of an object as an independent concept into a system together with the proper spatiotemporal structure.

natural .A.M. Coldcreation

 

I agree coldcreation; This is begining to interest me for I also have a geometrical outlook on the physics of our universe. I even have my own set of formuli to express these views. So lead on with your expose, you've got my attention.

[justforfun]

Yes, the possibility does exist that conscioussness, either individually or collectively or both, does create the perceived universe. It is very difficult to prove anything to be impossible, and since quantum physics is responsible for the multiverse theory, it should be very wary of calling ANYTHING impossible !!!

[lindagarrette]

Yes, the possibility does exist that conscioussness, either individually or collectively or both, does create the perceived universe. It is very difficult to prove anything to be impossible, and since quantum physics is responsible for the multiverse theory, it should be very wary of calling ANYTHING impossible !!!

Just because something may be possible doesn't mean we have to acknowledge its existance.

[infamous]

Just because something may be possible doesn't mean we have to acknowledge its existance.

 

True Linda, but it also doesn't mean we should ignore it either. Let's not be troubled by far out ideas, sometimes they lead us into new truths. Just remember the truth will stand when nothing else will, the garbage will eventually find its way into the trash. I believe that it is always more profitable to examine all possibilities even when we may be convinced that some have no value. There may be a surprise waiting for us just around the corner.

[Little Bang]

No your right, but asking the question is the first step in getting answers.