Sun-Like G-Dwarf Stars --"Best Bet for Locating Habitable Planets"
"The Bizarre Nature of Quantum Reality" --An Update

Today's 'Galaxy' Insight --"The Cosmos Would Not Exist Without Consciousness"

 

 

01 Consciousness

 

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of the universe that ignores consciousness."

Andrei Linde, Russian-American theoretical physicist and the Harald Trap Friis Professor of Physics at Stanford University. Linde is one of the world's leading proponents of the inflationary universe theory.

 

PW-2012-02-08-blog-linde

Image credits: woltlab.com and physicsworld.com/blog

Comments

Consciousness is an emergent property of the universe not the other way around. This at least should be self-evident.

Not necessarily. There is absolutely no evidence for strong emergence (emphasis on 'strong' re: magical) and even if strong emergence is accepted on faith it's an explanation with no explanatory power, which is to say it explains nothing. Individuated awareness appears long after the universe appears, but that is not a sufficient reason to reject the idea that consciousness, in some form, permeates the entire cosmos. Waking, everyday awareness is not all there is to consciousness. It is more like looking through a keyhole at the grand canyon.

The universe is an emergent property of Consciousness, not the other way around. That much is obvious.

How is "the cosmos could not exist without consciousness" dissimilar from "a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it"? Or, more deeply, as one translation of Lao Tzu has it, "Naming is the origin of all particular things."

The universe is the tv screen and we are the movie.
We need a wholistic model of the universe its all connected.
David Bohm and Basil Hiley are right on the money with their
research. Quantum theory is the holy grail of physics and will eventually show how are conciousness is the trip wire in the grand ddesign. Deniers need not apply, so change your way of thinking because materialism is dead.

As a follow-up to previous comments, the act of observing something makes it real to us, and therefore the existence of the entire Universe depends on our perception.
But ......, on the other hand, I don't think the entire Universe really gives a crap if we are watching it or not!

Ancient cultures, such as the Hawaiians and Tibetans have had a unity of cosmos and humankind world view since antiquity. These concepts are not new. They are simply being rediscovered by the modern era, which had forgotten them.

universe created us, not the other way. Man may come, man may go, but the universe will go on

This is feel-good, spiritual tripe which is fundamentally anti-science. This has no place on a site which purports to be scientific.

Comments from those like JM above, show just how endangered science is from those who hope to impose their belief systems onto reality.

We do not need any sort of model which "wholistically" incorporates primitive belief systems, philosophical methodologies and spirituality (whatever that is) and actual observable, repeatable and mathematically-provable models.

Even we humans are connected to our opposite mirror me:
see
Democratic free will in the entangled multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0071v2.pdf

this statement does not mean just human consciousness, it can be any type of consciousness. Without any consciousness, there will be nothing.

I would disagree with this. The universe existed before us humans, it exists while we live here and it will exist after we are gone. Simple as that.

Not having an observer for every single second of existence does not rule out existence.

the universe is to big to need a small companion human beliefs just like a double star, that if we might accept the universe than the universe might accept us toghether with our humans belongings of ideas,that we should be in any case a part of it just like a little berry , a part of the big blackberry in which somebody might found so many tastes and the single taste that can not might be found are the huge oceans of our planet,and therefor the universe and the human is a pair indeed but in case that the universe is a pair with an alien too ,and this is not the best consideration belief at least for the human race

the universe is to big to need a small companion human beliefs just like a double star, that if we might accept the universe than the universe might accept us toghether with our humans belongings of ideas,that we should be in any case a part of it just like a little berry , a part of the big blackberry in which somebody might found so many tastes and the single taste that can not might be found are the huge oceans of our planet,and therefor the universe and the human is a pair indeed but in case that the universe is a pair with an alien too ,and this is not the best consideration belief at least for the human race

If we accept that we are conscious beings, and if we accept that we are alive in the universe, and if we accept that we are part of the universe (i.e. not apart from it or simply "in it"), then we might conclude some interesting things. For example if we are OF the universe, not completely disconnected beings in a "room" called the universe, then the universe, if in some small way, exhibits the potential for consciousness: the universe can think - through us - and even begin to exercise will - free will. Are we the universe seeing itself for the first time? How many eyes and minds are out there? If observation and outcome are truly entangled, are conscious observers such as us the true architects of reality? And what of other beings with other observational abilities different than our own? Is the universe partly or wholly a product of these interactions through observations? Such questions are rather exciting and can help us begin to unravel the WHY of the cosmos even as we endeavor to fathom the HOW.

I think it is arrogant to believe that ‘existence’ can only occur if there is an entity with ‘awareness of self’ to experience it.

yes yes yes, but could any two of you agree on a definition of consciousness??? This is all just counting the number of angels on a pinhead. You cosmic theologians go ahead and enjoy yourselves. Others understand that until we work out a way to exist as symbionts on this planet rather than parasites, all of this pleasant discussion about how awesome the universe is will be as relevant as the final fart of the dinosaur.

Em: "until we work out a way to exist as symbionts on this planet rather than parasites" - that my friend, will require devine intervention. :)

We see what we think we see.

The use of the word 'observation' related to 'consciousness' is very misleading. This is 'local interaction' which should be used.

Sorry but we still don't know what consciousness is.

The theory of Inflation will rapidly disappear as soon as a simplified theory explaining most of the current unknowns will be accepted by a majority. Sorry again, there is no proof of Inflation and there will never be any. This was just a neat idea to fill a void, but it is time to pass to something else. Nothing goes faster than the speed of light, even if the relative speed of light is variable!


Correction:

Not 'nothing goes faster than light' but rather 'energy cannot go faster than light'.

Information probably can...

Vacuum fluctuations, plasma, neutron compact masses, strange matter, and our less extreme warm bozons are butt a few of the structures that may support organized, persistent, coherent entities capable of attention and observation.

Two quotes from the originator of quantum theory, Max Planck:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” -Max Planck

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force...we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck

Speculations arise when someone fills his void of knowledge with his own phantasms. It doesn't mean his phantasms are all unreal. But to make it real, he has to link it to reality.

Where is the missing link? If any... I would like to know...

First of all this statement doesn't talk about only human consciousness. It actually suggests that there is/are other form(s) of consciousness. And being who he is, Andrei Linde knows pretty well why observations at the quantum level require an observer in order to happen. So the question stated to this problem is - who was the observer before we humans became conscious? Hence the reply. It may sound spiritual, holistic, but from a physical point of view it actually makes sense. Maybe we just don't know how to name it and we call it consciousness - but we need to remember that our consciousness is the only kind of consciousness we know (or remember).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)