Speculations on the interaction of Consciousness and Universe

[human]

What these series of diagrams are speculating is that the existence of something is dependent on the observer. In other words, Einstein's Theory of Relativity can be applied to Existence itself. One of the diagrams goes on to introduce and advance the very radical and seemingly contradictory speculation that any entity that possesses consciousness is actually not fully conscious and full consciousness is actually the absence of consciousness in the traditionally accepted sense.

 

Note: At maybe one or two points in the below images I use the description "spectrum of existence" when I meant to use "span of existence".

 

Both actually refer to two different things:

 

"Spectrum of Existence" refers to the entire Universe, both seen and unseen, and includes all the multiple "spans of existence" that comprise a whole universe.

 

"Span of existence" refers to the segment or frequency spectrum a particular entity exists within, observes and can interact with and it is much smaller than the true and complete Spectrum of Existence.

 

I freely admit the presentation is rather sloppy and haphazard (for instance , the cube in one of the diagrams is missing a Z axis.)

 

I'm not advancing this as a "theory" or even a "hypothesis". I'm just leisurely speculating here so criticize, laugh, ignore, detract, reinforce, have fun with it.

 

note: i use the word "frequency" as an analogical term. in other words, our senses are "tuned" to this one small span on the entire "spectrum of existence". that is our "frequency"...but there are other "frequencies" we are not "tuned" to which lay outside our "frequency span".....that is why we can "hear" "signals" made over our "frequency span". ...because our senses are limited by our own characteristicsOur "frequency" is just another way of saying what is within our observation, interaction and detection. It's not meant in a pseudo-scientific, supernatural consciousness that is somehow magically attuned to the Universe, blah, blah.

 

 

 

Just including some text from the graphics to make it easier to respond. This text is repetitive to the images so you really need not read further. It is only provided should you wish to respond to some text.:

 

On Consciousness

 

Keep in mind, this hypothesis is advancing that the

Universe can both exist and not exist

at the same time so it's supposed to be

contradictory. Everything is relative. Not only, Time, as Einstein proposed,

but existence, space, matter, consciousness,

everything.

 

 

Looking at our sensory perception scale,

we can see that to be fully conscious

in a Universe that is Nothing is to lose

conscious. We can see our Universe

because we are NOT fully conscious.

We are not seeing the full spectrum

of existence, which is nothing. We

are only seeing and interacting with

parts of nothingness and that makes

us believe different things exist. But

separate things do not exist.

Everything is fused into nothingness.

So the ability to contemplate a universe and separate entities

as existing represents

a loss or subtraction of sensory perception

and therefore consciousness.

 

Different entities perceive and interact

with the Universe differently much in the

same way different colors are perceptible

to different species. Were we able to detect

all the colors of the Universe, we would see

there is no universe. Or a painting done in part visible colors

and part undetectable ultraviolet colors. Since we only see

the colors detectable to the human eye, we get a picture of say, a turtle.

But if we could detect all the colors, maybe we would see no picture. maybe it would be

perceived as blank?

 

This relativity of existence extends also

to motion. A rock can tumble down a hill

because it can only interact with so much

of the true Universe. If it could interact

with all of the true Universe, it would be

unable to move because the true Universe

is Nothing. In this regard a rock is more

"conscious" of the true nature of the universe

than us because, if not physically, a rock "knows"

there's nothing to "perceive" in the Universe

with which to mentally interact..A rock, at least,

"knows" that much, (which is more than us) even

if it doesn't "know" enough to stay still too..

 

 

On Existence

 

Matter/Space density threshold:

The threshold where the known universe

appears to us as either all matter or all

empty space that both are states of

nothlngness or non-existence from

our conscious perspective.

 

Existence Span

The existence frequency or wave length an

existent or set of existents exist within and

beyond which the existence of other

existents becomes sketchy

and imperceptible.

 

 

Because matter can exist at different frequencies on the

the existence spectrum, it follows that what qualifies

as a "universe" for one existent, may qualify as anti-

existence to another existent. Thus, what qualies as

a "universe" or "non-existence is relative to what you are.

 

 

The Big Bang

(or why the Big Bang both happened and didn't happen at the same time)

 

The grey triangle in the figure above represents the Big Bang

as detected by humans senses, including our technology.

The yellow area represents the rest of the undetectible Universe,

the part of the Universe we cannot see or interact with. From our

perspective, and because our senses can only detect a small fraction

of the existing Universe, it appears to us that the Big Bang happened.

And for all intents and purposes it did, for us. But on the scale of the

Universe as a whole, the scale of full consciousness of the complete

Universe represented by the entire figure above, both grey and yellow

areas, nothing happened at all because nothing exists.

This corresponds to certain well known experiments

at the quantum level where an outcome is dependent

on whether we are observing it or not. Whether the

Big Bang happened or not is dependent on the

capabilities of the perceptions and characteristics

of the observer.

 

 

Competing Forms of Nothingness

Completely Empty Space Completely Occupied Space

The two blocks above represent two concepts of ("Pre)Universe and Nothingness.

They attempt to show how Nothingness can be perceived by either empty space completely

void of solid objects or "Matter" or by a state of total occupation completely void of space.

The rst is self explanatory. The second can be visualized by imagining a solid "block of matter

with no separation between atoms or particles; in fact, no atoms, no elementary particles, a state

of total non separation. If there is no separation, just like with empty space, nothing can exist.

Since both satisfy our traditional denitions of Nothingness, the distinction of both states breaks

down, and we can postulate that either or both states can individually or simultaneously represent

our concept of a "pre-Universe."

 

The multi-colored block above represents a mixed universe of both empty space and mass.

Since, as demonstrated in the rst two gures, both states alone are states of Nothingness,

this third model shows a universe comprised of two competing forms of nothingness. All

the differentiation we can see can be reduced down to a 1 and a O. Since both space and

mass are just two competing forms of nothingness that existed prior to our own existence

and awareness of them, we can postulate that the Universe has both always existed and doesnt

actually "exist" (in the traditionally regarded sense) at all. It's all nothing.

 

And so we can surmise that the reason the Universe doesn't have to be created is because it doesn't

exist and never did.

 

What we can postulate is that something seems to be "existing" within the nothingness

of the universe that is and once was itself nothing but is able to blur the lines between being a non-existent whole

and separate ephemeral existent identities through the manufacturing of entities that first can interact and then observe. Almost as if the nothingness of space itself was "existing" and undulating like an electric air bubble inside the equal nothingness of a block of a totally filled void, like an electron through a wire or a field through a magnet, in which random fluctuations occasionally give rise to entities that only appear to themselves to exist but in the grand scheme of things, do not.

[Phi for All]

I'm not advancing this as a "theory" or even a "hypothesis". I'm just leisurely speculating here so criticize, laugh, ignore, detract, reinforce, have fun with it.

 

That's not really what we do here. If you can't support the model with math or some evidence that shows you may have something meaningful, it's just guesswork. Anyone can do it.

 

Is there any way to test this idea?

[human]

That's not really what we do here. If you can't support the model with math or some evidence that shows you may have something meaningful, it's just guesswork. Anyone can do it.

 

Is there any way to test this idea?

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Feel free to delete this thread if I've got the wrong forum for this kind of speculation.

 

As for can it be tested...I don't know. Maybe. As a secondary consequence, it implies that the fuzziness of quantum physics and the various weird results, such as the interference pattern and entanglement, could stem from the limits of our senses and technology, and not necessarily anything seemingly inherently nutty in quantum physics. If, for a second, we assume these oddly behaving particles are perhaps interacting with other particles beyond our detection, perhaps we can develop tests that can infer these other particles with more reliability and accuracy than just settling on the conclusion that quantum physics is inexplicable to the human mind just because the reach of our senses and technology are stymied.

 

For instance, a particle producing a wave is like a boat producing a wave without any water. Well, given the elusive nature of quantum particles, perhaps the "water" is there but we don't see it manifested until we know the particle is moving.

 

And how do we know quantum entanglement doesn't only appear instantaneous because of the limits of our means of detection? We don't seem to be factoring in the limits of our means of detection to explain the weirdness of quantum behavior. Instead we assume we are capable of seeing everything and just conclude quantum physics is inherently weird.

 

How do those drawing the conclusion that quantum physics is inherently weird, know they are seeing everything? Have they done tests to determine the range of detection of our senses and technology?

 

I'm not saying because there are limits to our senses and technology that we can just make up pink elephants to explain quantum behavior. But let's not rule out that behavior at that level of reality could be influenced by interactions beyond our ability to immediately detect.

[Strange]

For instance, a particle producing a wave is like a boat producing a wave without any water. Well, given the elusive nature of quantum particles, perhaps the "water" is there but we don't see it manifested until we know the particle is moving.

 

There is an important theoretical result called Bell's Theorem (which has been experimentally tested) which demonstrates that there cannot be a model with such "water" that produces the same results as we observe.

 

I'm afraid that rigorous mathematics and experimental confirmation trump vague "what ifs".

 

 

We don't seem to be factoring in the limits of our means of detection to explain the weirdness of quantum behavior.

 

What do you base that on? (Or, as they say on Wikipedia: Citation needed.)

 

 

I'm not saying because there are limits to our senses and technology that we can just make up pink elephants to explain quantum behavior.

 

It is hard to see the difference.

 

 

But let's not rule out that behavior at that level of reality could be influenced by interactions beyond our ability to immediately detect.

 

I don't think anyone doubts that. I have heard of many times when physicists have been disappointed when they get the expected results from their experiment because it rules out the exciting stuff: new physics beyond what we know. Finding the Higgs boson is one recent example.

[human]

There is an important theoretical result called Bell's Theorem (which has been experimentally tested) which demonstrates that there cannot be a model with such "water" that produces the same results as we observe.

 

I'm afraid that rigorous mathematics and experimental confirmation trump vague "what ifs".

.

Please no need to feign disappointment. I get it and I'm with you on that one. You're absolutely right. My purpose in posting was in the notion that "what if's" sometimes go somewhere. But thanks to your response, I can see I have a little more digging to do in this area before I can make informal proposals. So this thread was helpful in that respect.

 

I just heard a reference to Bell a few hours ago in a documentary I was watching. They didn't mention that part of his experimentation, which would have been helpful to me to know.

 

What do you base that on?

After your reply? Clearly, ignorance.

 

I wish I could gain enough of a grasp of this topic to at least know what not to ask or propose. I'm never going to understand the math but it would be good to know the already established dead ends.

 

This was obviously a purely philosophical attempt to explain the Universe. A scientist like Lawrence Krauss clearly has a mathematical basis going for his explanation. But I do wonder if math could be applied to this based on what we already know to determine any validity for it.

[Strange]

Hey, thanks for not being yet another of the "I may not know anything about it, but I know I'm right" crowd !

[human]

Hey, thanks for not being yet another of the "I may not know anything about it, but I know I'm right" crowd !

More importantly, thank you and the moderator for having patience for my very sloppy and unscientific speculating. I know full well you guys get given a tough time. And it's equally tough to have to tell people they are wrong - the scene in Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World with the cab driver comes to mind - but I'm less interested in preserving my ideas than with catching up to where science is in this area. I'd be far more interested in knowing why, for instance, why someone knows I'm wrong. That's just as good.

Edited September 16, 2015 by human

[Phi for All]

I wish I could gain enough of a grasp of this topic to at least know what not to ask or propose. I'm never going to understand the math but it would be good to know the already established dead ends.

 

Wow, I didn't see that coming. How refreshing!

 

Here's what's going on. You're a very smart person, but you probably didn't focus on STEM subjects when you had the opportunity for formal training. Now you read popular science articles, and your very smart brain cherry-picks the parts it understands, identifies what it doesn't know, and fills in the blanks with plausible conjecture.

 

Part of the problem though, is that science isn't very linear, and not necessarily intuitive either. The brain wants patterns that may not exist. Reality doesn't have to make sense, whereas your brain thinks that's the most important thing there is. If you don't have that transitional knowledge, and understand rationally how to put the pieces together, you end up with lots of leaps and guesses that force you to build on shaky foundations.

 

If you can, I highly recommend you pick a place to start and learn mainstream science. There are so many great resources, and the only reason I'm mentioning them to you is because you sound smart enough to actually listen. You have a realistic estimation of your current knowledge, you probably underestimate your math capabilities, and you recognize where your limitations need shoring up.

 

I like human, human is good.

[human]

Wow, I didn't see that coming. How refreshing!

 

Here's what's going on. You're a very smart person, but you probably didn't focus on STEM subjects when you had the opportunity for formal training. Now you read popular science articles, and your very smart brain cherry-picks the parts it understands, identifies what it doesn't know, and fills in the blanks with plausible conjecture.

 

Part of the problem though, is that science isn't very linear, and not necessarily intuitive either. The brain wants patterns that may not exist. Reality doesn't have to make sense, whereas your brain thinks that's the most important thing there is. If you don't have that transitional knowledge, and understand rationally how to put the pieces together, you end up with lots of leaps and guesses that force you to build on shaky foundations.

 

If you can, I highly recommend you pick a place to start and learn mainstream science. There are so many great resources, and the only reason I'm mentioning them to you is because you sound smart enough to actually listen. You have a realistic estimation of your current knowledge, you probably underestimate your math capabilities, and you recognize where your limitations need shoring up.

 

I like human, human is good.

 

Awesome reply. Thank you. That's exactly what I needed to hear. I doubt i will ever be able to master the math in order to understand it all on that level. I'm too far gone on that front. Hopefully it won't take mathematics to dispell me of any of my incorrect philosophical musings on the origin of the Universe.

 

What could I read or watch that would be the quickest way to determine if my guess is wrong because it's just a guess or because it really is a wrong guess? Does the accumulation of science say anything definitively that would put my guess either to rest or beyond the realm of proof? Is what is wrong with my guess is that it is provably wrong or just no way to know?

 

I mean, I have read some of Hawking, watch physics lectures and docs on YouTube, - Lawrence Krauss, Briane Greene, Brian Cox, etc - consumed all that I could... why can't I find the information that will allow me not to fall into guessing?

 

Thanks.

[Mordred]

Well here is some reading material

 

Start with the misconceptions section first.

Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions)

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant"

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdfIs it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

 

Training (textbook Style Articles)

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf:"Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

This site has 4 online textbooks.

 

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Edited September 16, 2015 by Mordred

[human]

Well here is some reading material

Start with the misconceptions section first.

Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions)http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdfIs it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

Training (textbook Style Articles)http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf:"Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

This site has 4 online textbooks.http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

 

Now that will give you dark circles under the eyes. Thanks for taking the time to compile all those links. I can see this is going to take a while...haha.

[Phi for All]

Now that will give you dark circles under the eyes. Thanks for taking the time to compile all those links. I can see this is going to take a while...haha.

 

It will take you longer than the time you've already spent wandering in the wilderness, trying to intuit your way through. But studying mainstream knowledge is like coming out of the woods to find the Autobahn in front of you, with a sports car ready and waiting for you. But you have to be willing to learn, and the rewards are the absolute best explanations we have for various phenomena.

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Mordred, I was hoping you would see an outstanding teaching opportunity (our Resident Experts are always happy to see someone with a passion and a great attitude).