Scientist explores himself

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Melchior

What was interesting for me was that during the time I was reading through that set of explanations, I had a sneaking suspicion that I had come across something like it in the past, if not this one specifically, then something quite similar, down to the comparison with a computer, but that is a common comparison I take it. But yeah, as for the background, I did pretty much already know all of it already, including the violation of Bell's inequalities, quantum tunneling, 'identical' wavicles (those particle-wave electrons), speed of light 'limit', and then some.

It's great that you read so much of that link. I was just referencing that 1 page though, the computer analogy I don't have a take on. In the Newtonian mechanistic era we were compared to machines and now in the computer era the same thing is happening. Both are correct only up to a point.

The important part of the text are the findings of the double-slit experiment variations.

Originally Posted by Melchior

The problem I have with putting these statements to consciousness is that we don't really know what this consciousness thing is. When we study the brain, per say, all we see are the 'same' things that we observe in the laboratory for a double slit experiment. Also of note, because the equipment we use to measure the experiments are not classical in nature either, but also obey the same laws as the stuff that they are measuring (i'm sure you would agree with this statement, especially if those toasters brought up in the example by the notes were replaced by electron detectors), it's not that far of a stretch to apply the same rules to ourselves.

Well the thing is that you ARE saying what consciousness is as a general idea (game of life, nothing special, emergent property). That thesis does suggest that consciousness should not be displaying any special abilities beyond other phenomenon.
Now that it IS showing unexplained abilities to resort to saying "we don't really know what it is" is closer to MY position.

I'm not sure what you mean about studying the brain. Quantum experiments and brain studies are very different. The experiments cannot be blamed on equipment. The wave function for machines, toasters and people is still a reality but the wavelength is ridiculously smaller. A 2 particle system in Hilbert space is much more complicated although in a macroscopic object all of the particles are entangled (one system). But the object (toaster) would have to pass through the detector at a slow speed, longer than the age of the universe.

There are also other routes that consciousness must effect reality other than wave collapse, some have been indirectly seen in other experiments.
For now the simple idea that consciousness forcing a 1 particle system into a definite state with only "awareness of a fact" is enough to show consciousness is more than reductionists believe.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I mean, if you look at the eye, it is an example of a detector, our brain, the 'computer' that analyzes the incoming information of that detector (such as the one that they recorded information on in an experiment, but destroyed the data before/after looking at the results of the interference so that they couldn't tell either way). It pretty then boils down to the question of: what makes us so special? Well, I don't think too much. Although, if i were to make a comparison, we would be akin to the spaceships in Conway's Game of Life.

What makes us so special compared to a detector or computer in this experiment? We create the wave/partical collapse! What more would one need?

The detector HAS the information but that does not cause a collapse. So inert matter "knowing" something cannot effect matter. Yet our inert matter (brain) can. We have to actually learn the information for anything different to happen. Part 2 of the problem - how the hell is this interaction possible? There is no exchange of information here? For now it is "magic". And it is caused by the influence of one thing only. Conscious knowledge.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Another point I'd have to make is that the analogy with the computer while a good one is also 'incomplete'. for a computer, it's not just the program that is there. there has to be the hardware for the software to run on (I think I mentioned this somewhere, if not here, then probably one of my other posts... >.>). In any case, I'll bring back that one quote here as well: "It's all hardware". Because if you think about a computer, even the computer program is a result of the underlying hardware performing the instructions. The 'information' of a program, by itself does nothing. It has nothing to operate on, no substance in of itself either. Of course, the computer is just an analogy and analogies tend to break down at times. What I do want to get across here is that information existing on its own doesn't really explain our universe as well as the idea that the information actually comes from somewhere, namely something 'real' as opposed to 'imaginary'. Also, I think if you look at the mathematics of the 'rules' which are also 'information' (information about what? I say it's about the physical universe, and not just an information one), they tend to find real answers (as opposed to imaginary ones, mathematically that is...), at least in QM they give 'real' probabilities that can be measured empirically.

I know what you mean but in the Copenhagen Interpretation which says matter does not exist independently of the observer there are no actual formulas yet. BUT the parts dealing with consciousness are probability law and the state vector, a mathematical representation of "our knowledge of the system" and are characterized by complex quantities (uses imaginary i) and can mean that consciousness is OUTSIDE of the system.

Imaginary rules are becoming very common.
Time has also turned out to be imaginary. The time vector in 4D does use complex numbers unlike the other 3 dimensions.


So there are 2 things that transcend the rules, entanglement and consciousness. In 1900 physics was believed to be almost "wrapped up", they just needed to figure out 2 things - is light a wave or particle and what causes black body radiation?
The answer opened a vast and unthinkable world beyond anyones imagination.

Originally Posted by Melchior

physical world, the emergent consciousness doesn't really possess the creation abilities that it holds because all parts of the world hold the exact same qualities. I think that it is the interaction between the real that cause for what seem to be the individual realities of the real. and it's these interactions that would then in turn serve as the basis for consciousness.

That's why the physical model has less power. Experiments show that consciousness does have this ability and no parts of anything else hold these qualities. Alternate models do not explain away the leading interpretation which gives consciousness this power.
Hidden variables has been proven to be impossible. Block time with Many-Worlds could be a possible deterministic system but it's not going to override the Copenhagen theory.

Right now many physicists are not aware that the interpretation of modern physics implies that matter does not exist independently of the observer.
Almost all physicists are concentrating their efforts on calculating predictions using mathematical formalism or finding useful applications, very few scientists think about these things so they are not as mainstream as they should.

Originally Posted by Melchior

This isn't to say that I don't believe in LoA at all. Just that if it exists, and I've experienced 'evidence' myself that might support it, it would exist as a result of physical laws as well, ones that we might not have yet discovered (although, if i had to choose one out of the current pool of ideas that I know of, it would be due to some sort of quantum entanglement )

Testing on your own is a good idea if you find any credibility in the ideas.

Originally Posted by Melchior

One more thing, in the 'paradox' of Zeno's of the runner, I just want to comment that due to the uncertainty principle, when you try to locate the person at an infinitesimally small distance (i.e. at the end), you find out that you can't because you already know his 'exact' momentum, and he could have at that time existed past the point of the finish line. (at least, that is my naive answer to it anyway)

Yes and the Plank Length limit 10^-34 would be a problem too.
In Infinity and the Mind Rudy Rucker says that Zeno's way of the paradox is to deny that space is made up of points, an undivided whole.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

Well the thing is that you ARE saying what consciousness is as a general idea (game of life, nothing special, emergent property). That thesis does suggest that consciousness should not be displaying any special abilities beyond other phenomenon.
Now that it IS showing unexplained abilities to resort to saying "we don't really know what it is" is closer to MY position.

I'm not sure what you mean about studying the brain. Quantum experiments and brain studies are very different. The experiments cannot be blamed on equipment. The wave function for machines, toasters and people is still a reality but the wavelength is ridiculously smaller. A 2 particle system in Hilbert space is much more complicated although in a macroscopic object all of the particles are entangled (one system). But the object (toaster) would have to pass through the detector at a slow speed, longer than the age of the universe.

There are also other routes that consciousness must effect reality other than wave collapse, some have been indirectly seen in other experiments.
For now the simple idea that consciousness forcing a 1 particle system into a definite state with only "awareness of a fact" is enough to show consciousness is more than reductionists believe.

Hrm... Perhaps I was a bit unclear... I wasn't trying to imply that it is something altogether different from what we already know, just that we don't know what consciousness is exactly (i.e. it 'could' be due to something or some property we haven't discovered before).

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that it is only this thing that we call consciousness that can collapse the wavefunction. It is my belief that any interaction between two different wavefunctions (not exactly interference) causes wavefunction collapse for both parties although perhaps not for the rest of the world (because there has not yet been an interaction, although it would be hard to keep that interaction from occurring sooner or later I would think). That interaction causes one to be 'aware' of the other and vice versa. In other words, I would propose that if an electron detector in an experiment could detect and record both the electron in it's starting slit and the screen where it would see a clumping pattern but the experimenters destroyed all data of the detector so that they could not gather this information, then the experimenters would see an interference pattern instead. (Alternatively, you could replace the electron detector with a conscious human being and get the same results, but there would probably be ethical reasons against that experiment. Hmm... this sounds surprisingly similar to Schrodinger's Cat doesn't it?)

In other words, the information is there, but you might just not be able to obtain it. I know I'm guessing here, but I think that consciousness is something of a mechanism for sharing known (obtained) information so that a combined group of wavefunctions (such as yourself) can do something useful (such as move around, perhaps even replicate, similar to the spaceship or spaceship gun in Conway's Game of Life). If that is the case, then consciousness would indeed be an emergent property.

What makes us so special compared to a detector or computer in this experiment? We create the wave/partical collapse! What more would one need?

The detector HAS the information but that does not cause a collapse. So inert matter "knowing" something cannot effect matter. Yet our inert matter (brain) can. We have to actually learn the information for anything different to happen. Part 2 of the problem - how the hell is this interaction possible? There is no exchange of information here? For now it is "magic". And it is caused by the influence of one thing only. Conscious knowledge.

I suppose I answered that above didn't I? ^_^
We're fundamentally no different from a detector or computer in the experiment. What do we know of what the detector or computer thinks it sees in its reality?

Unfortunately, with this, I'm now once again questioning the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation... and things haven't yet resolved. I think I'm overlooking something, something related to the interconnectedness of the universe... >.>
At this point I did a bit of googling using some keywords you used (in the next bit); came up with: Transactional Interpretation and the Afshar Experiment. Maybe I'll get back to you on this, although if I do, it probably won't be for a good while as I let some things digest for now and see if I can make something of a better understanding of what's going on. For now, I will simply thank you.

As for your second question about the exchange of information, how does an electron know that it is in an electric field accelerating it? how does inert matter feel gravity? those interactions are exchanges of information just as much as us seeing what is up with the electron at the end of the double slit experiment. In the end, we still have to rely on some form of detector (whether it is visual, auditory, etc) to relay that information to our brain. If we don't get that information, we don't consciously know what is going on, but the particles making up our body might, 'unconsciously'. (of course, this is still coming from someone that does not sharply distinguish between the duality of consciousness and unconsciousness )

I know what you mean but in the Copenhagen Interpretation which says matter does not exist independently of the observer there are no actual formulas yet. BUT the parts dealing with consciousness are probability law and the state vector, a mathematical representation of "our knowledge of the system" and are characterized by complex quantities (uses imaginary i) and can mean that consciousness is OUTSIDE of the system.

Imaginary rules are becoming very common.
Time has also turned out to be imaginary. The time vector in 4D does use complex numbers unlike the other 3 dimensions.


So there are 2 things that transcend the rules, entanglement and consciousness. In 1900 physics was believed to be almost "wrapped up", they just needed to figure out 2 things - is light a wave or particle and what causes black body radiation?
The answer opened a vast and unthinkable world beyond anyones imagination.

I think I had jumped ahead of myself again... for now, I'll leave you with something that came to me as a response, partly due to me running across Godel's Incompleteness Theorems sometime quite recently for whatever reason, heh. There is nothing that transcends the rules, except perhaps for that last statement. Also, I don't think that there is anything 'outside' the system. If the two interact, then it is all one system.

That's why the physical model has less power. Experiments show that consciousness does have this ability and no parts of anything else hold these qualities. Alternate models do not explain away the leading interpretation which gives consciousness this power.
Hidden variables has been proven to be impossible. Block time with Many-Worlds could be a possible deterministic system but it's not going to override the Copenhagen theory.

Right now many physicists are not aware that the interpretation of modern physics implies that matter does not exist independently of the observer.
Almost all physicists are concentrating their efforts on calculating predictions using mathematical formalism or finding useful applications, very few scientists think about these things so they are not as mainstream as they should.

If that power is unwarranted, then I see no reason why that interpretation is useful then. But perhaps you are correct, and it would make my life perhaps a bit more complicated, for a while at least. One more thing while I'm at it, I'll bet that there are even less engineers that think about these things.
(the quote "Shut up and calculate!" comes to mind)

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that it is only this thing that we call consciousness that can collapse the wavefunction. It is my belief that any interaction between two different wavefunctions (not exactly interference) causes wavefunction collapse for both parties although perhaps not for the rest of the world (because there has not yet been an interaction, although it would be hard to keep that interaction from occurring sooner or later I would think). That interaction causes one to be 'aware' of the other and vice versa. In other words, I would propose that if an electron detector in an experiment could detect and record both the electron in it's starting slit and the screen where it would see a clumping pattern but the experimenters destroyed all data of the detector so that they could not gather this information, then the experimenters would see an interference pattern instead. (Alternatively, you could replace the electron detector with a conscious human being and get the same results, but there would probably be ethical reasons against that experiment. Hmm... this sounds surprisingly similar to Schrodinger's Cat doesn't it?)

I see what you are saying. The Copenhagen Interpretation is saying that consciousness SEEMS to be the important factor, Bohr, Heisenburg, Pauli and others have looked at the evidence and decided this is the most likely. That humans and detectors are different in this case.
The other thing is that if human consciousness responded just like a detector (destroying the scientist and having the particle pattern switch back to a wave interference pattern) would likely be a violation of special relativity as there would be multiple different accounts of the particle being wave or particle (interference pattern or direct hit from a particle on the screen). I haven't yet taken into account moving observers, I think this would create more problems. Even if the information traveled instantly there would be some possible paradoxes. You have to perform a thought experiment that involves scenes of the scientist, detector and screen traveling at light speed to observers at different locations and an observer at the location who was protected from the blast.

Say there is one scientist who collapsed the wave and saw the particle pattern. He and all information are then vaporized 1 min later and the detector went back to wave like you suggested. Another scientist comes into the room and sees the wave behavior on the screen. But now there is an image of the detector screen reading a particle pattern (from 1 min ago) speeding towards another observer 10 light minutes away. He will see the particle pattern while the scientist in the room sees a wave.

There are other more complicated scenarios, this is just to give you the basic idea. The solution to all paradoxes so far is to have the particle pattern remain even after the scientist is..uh..removed from the scene. So any one of the scientists consciousness's are unique.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Unfortunately, with this, I'm now once again questioning the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation... and things haven't yet resolved. I think I'm overlooking something, something related to the interconnectedness of the universe... >.>
At this point I did a bit of googling using some keywords you used (in the next bit); came up with: Transactional Interpretation and the Afshar Experiment. Maybe I'll get back to you on this, although if I do, it probably won't be for a good while as I let some things digest for now and see if I can make something of a better understanding of what's going on. For now, I will simply thank you.

Thank you too. I have seen some of the alternative interpretations. If you include just scientific papers there are 1000's. Some places archive them.

Originally Posted by Melchior

As for your second question about the exchange of information, how does an electron know that it is in an electric field accelerating it?

Exchange of photons and virtual electrons

Originally Posted by Melchior

how does inert matter feel gravity?

Gravitions and gravitinos (hypothetical)

Originally Posted by Melchior

hose interactions are exchanges of information just as much as us seeing what is up with the electron at the end of the double slit experiment. In the end, we still have to rely on some form of detector (whether it is visual, auditory, etc) to relay that information to our brain. If we don't get that information, we don't consciously know what is going on, but the particles making up our body might, 'unconsciously'. (of course, this is still coming from someone that does not sharply distinguish between the duality of consciousness and unconsciousness )

No the mystery is that there are no carrier particles that are known that eminate from a person after they have learned information about the particles location. This knowledge then goes on to collapse the wave. Even if the person is on the other side of he planet in the future
The detector can have the information but if we program the detector to spit it out using random numbers or we somehow garble the symbols the detector uses to communicate, there will be no collapse. It's a matter of us having he information.
In physics that type of communication is magic. EVERY other interaction we know of (except entanglement) is accounted for by quantum mechanics, Q. electrodynamics and Q. chromodynamics.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I think I had jumped ahead of myself again... for now, I'll leave you with something that came to me as a response, partly due to me running across Godel's Incompleteness Theorems sometime quite recently for whatever reason, heh. There is nothing that transcends the rules, except perhaps for that last statement. Also, I don't think that there is anything 'outside' the system. If the two interact, then it is all one system.

The last statement is a meta-statement. But then you can have a meta-meta statement. Infinite regress. I love Godel and the world of set theory and logic.

It's all in the system but we can't access the whole system. There are a few things peering out at us from the other part like the strange meta-physical connection consciousness and entangled particles have.Some believe that consciousness will have a large role in the totality of the system.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

I see what you are saying. The Copenhagen Interpretation is saying that consciousness SEEMS to be the important factor, Bohr, Heisenburg, Pauli and others have looked at the evidence and decided this is the most likely. That humans and detectors are different in this case.
The other thing is that if human consciousness responded just like a detector (destroying the scientist and having the particle pattern switch back to a wave interference pattern) would likely be a violation of special relativity as there would be multiple different accounts of the particle being wave or particle (interference pattern or direct hit from a particle on the screen). I haven't yet taken into account moving observers, I think this would create more problems. Even if the information traveled instantly there would be some possible paradoxes. You have to perform a thought experiment that involves scenes of the scientist, detector and screen traveling at light speed to observers at different locations and an observer at the location who was protected from the blast.

Say there is one scientist who collapsed the wave and saw the particle pattern. He and all information are then vaporized 1 min later and the detector went back to wave like you suggested. Another scientist comes into the room and sees the wave behavior on the screen. But now there is an image of the detector screen reading a particle pattern (from 1 min ago) speeding towards another observer 10 light minutes away. He will see the particle pattern while the scientist in the room sees a wave.

There are other more complicated scenarios, this is just to give you the basic idea. The solution to all paradoxes so far is to have the particle pattern remain even after the scientist is..uh..removed from the scene. So any one of the scientists consciousness's are unique.

...

No the mystery is that there are no carrier particles that are known that eminate from a person after they have learned information about the particles location. This knowledge then goes on to collapse the wave. Even if the person is on the other side of he planet in the future
The detector can have the information but if we program the detector to spit it out using random numbers or we somehow garble the symbols the detector uses to communicate, there will be no collapse. It's a matter of us having he information.
In physics that type of communication is magic. EVERY other interaction we know of (except entanglement) is accounted for by quantum mechanics, Q. electrodynamics and Q. chromodynamics.

You probably already know about this then: Delayed Choice Experiment, (alternatively by the same guy in the paper you gave me earlier: Ross Rhodes on Delayed Choice ), I only stumbled upon it a few days ago when looking further into the topic... >.>

Pretty much this has solidified my stance that if the information is not available/can't get to you (and it can only travel at the speed of light at maximum), then it behaves as though it never existed (and this may have been what you were after in the first place as well . hear me out though, I think I still have a different interpretation after that 'fact'). This of course, isn't to say that the information didn't exist (because just as in the case of the scientist experiment, that information existed for the scientist, but that scientist also would not be able to relay that information to the others, for whatever reason), just that you will never know what it is (and I think this is where we differ? maybe not, maybe we don't, that would be excellent ). It reminds me somewhat actually of that idea that there are no rigid bodies in nature (i.e. the tail end of a clock hand doesn't 'move' until it get's the information to by way of the 'ripple' of movement through the length of the hand. granted, for a clock hand, this is rather quick) In other words, it takes 'time' or an 'interval' for any information from a source to reach any destination... It's all the same universe, but different parts of the universe see different things by way of different interactions going on.

Another thought that occurred to me, probably also partially spurred on by your response, while pondering all this stuff was that there are no simultaneous interactions. Because the 'virtual particles' that must travel and essentially get 'absorbed'/destroyed on the receiving end, no two interactions can have the same virtual particle causing it. Later on, for that information to transfer onto other particles, it is either up to the original particle to continue to project information or for the affected particle to project information that would indicate the first interaction. For example, in the case of the electron detector, we read data off the detector which is able to sufficiently record and relay the information (such as a blip on the screen) it received about the electron. If that information is not available, then we 'see' something different (due to lack of information to make things clearer? Not sure at the moment... >.>). Speaking of which, we see things with our eyes and that relays information to our brain (which I would like to point out, features an enormous amount of redundancy). (please, if you know more about these things, correct me if I'm wrong in this, but I'm pretty certain that logically it make sense, and I don't think the assumptions are wrong either). In other words, I would agree with that statement of yours that each scientist's consciousness is unique, but perhaps without the paradox if you can accept that.

Thank you too. I have seen some of the alternative interpretations. If you include just scientific papers there are 1000's. Some places archive them.

*Groan...* not more reading....

The last statement is a meta-statement. But then you can have a meta-meta statement. Infinite regress. I love Godel and the world of set theory and logic.

It's all in the system but we can't access the whole system. There are a few things peering out at us from the other part like the strange meta-physical connection consciousness and entangled particles have.Some believe that consciousness will have a large role in the totality of the system.

hmm... entangled particles too, same rules perhaps as what I described above? This is sounding more like the whole sort of general mish mash than anything out of a standard physics interpretation... I'm wondering if Douglas Adams knew more than he was letting on. I'm going to go blither now...

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Melchior

You probably already know about this then: Delayed Choice Experiment, (alternatively by the same guy in the paper you gave me earlier: Ross Rhodes on Delayed Choice ), I only stumbled upon it a few days ago when looking further into the topic... >.>

Pretty much this has solidified my stance that if the information is not available/can't get to you (and it can only travel at the speed of light at maximum), then it behaves as though it never existed (and this may have been what you were after in the first place as well . hear me out though, I think I still have a different interpretation after that 'fact'). This of course, isn't to say that the information didn't exist (because just as in the case of the scientist experiment, that information existed for the scientist, but that scientist also would not be able to relay that information to the others, for whatever reason), just that you will never know what it is (and I think this is where we differ? maybe not, maybe we don't, that would be excellent ). It reminds me somewhat actually of that idea that there are no rigid bodies in nature (i.e. the tail end of a clock hand doesn't 'move' until it get's the information to by way of the 'ripple' of movement through the length of the hand. granted, for a clock hand, this is rather quick) In other words, it takes 'time' or an 'interval' for any information from a source to reach any destination... It's all the same universe, but different parts of the universe see different things by way of different interactions going on.

Thanks for the link.
In the earlier experiment where the physicist is eliminated after collapsing the wave (assuming all information is bound by light speed here) the wave MUST remain collapsed even if the scientist is disintegrated.

Otherwise after the first scientist is removed, another scientist could come into the room, see the wave as it was before the first man collapsed it - as a wave and all would seem fine. The problem is that another man located in space a few light minutes away could potentially suddenly decide to look in his telescope and see the photons carrying the image of the first scientist with the wave collapsed, holding up a sign with the detector information. He could even video the scene.

If he then got in his spaceship with the video (he stopped looking and missed the disintegration part) and went to the lab he would find the 2nd scientist who has seen only the wave version. When the photons from the telescope scientist reached him would the wave suddenly change to particles?
And when the telescope scientist arrived at the lab with the video there would be a paradoxial violation of some sort.


The erasure experiment is usually interpreted as - if a consciousness learns particle information from a past event then the past event changes to fit the present circumstances.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Another thought that occurred to me, probably also partially spurred on by your response, while pondering all this stuff was that there are no simultaneous interactions. Because the 'virtual particles' that must travel and essentially get 'absorbed'/destroyed on the receiving end, no two interactions can have the same virtual particle causing it. Later on, for that information to transfer onto other particles, it is either up to the original particle to continue to project information or for the affected particle to project information that would indicate the first interaction. For example, in the case of the electron detector, we read data off the detector which is able to sufficiently record and relay the information (such as a blip on the screen) it received about the electron. If that information is not available, then we 'see' something different (due to lack of information to make things clearer? Not sure at the moment... >.>). Speaking of which, we see things with our eyes and that relays information to our brain (which I would like to point out, features an enormous amount of redundancy). (please, if you know more about these things, correct me if I'm wrong in this, but I'm pretty certain that logically it make sense, and I don't think the assumptions are wrong either). In other words, I would agree with that statement of yours that each scientist's consciousness is unique, but perhaps without the paradox if you can accept that.


hmm... entangled particles too, same rules perhaps as what I described above? This is sounding more like the whole sort of general mish mash than anything out of a standard physics interpretation... I'm wondering if Douglas Adams knew more than he was letting on. I'm going to go blither now...

There are simultaneous interactions, that was predicted in the EPR paradox used to prove quantum mechanics was wrong - because it requires simultaneous interactions between entangled particles. In 1982 Alain Aspect proved the interactions were in fact faster than light. Recent experiments have confirmed that to a much speedier degree. We can't ever measure "simultaneous" literally of course but the interactions are proven to be much faster than light and probably are instant like the math says. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance.

For all we know the wave collapse information might also be instant which changes things. No tests have been done for that. It is a violation of Special Relativity to have casual events happen instantly. They should test for that anyway.

Eyesight isn't required to collapse a wave, just thoughts. Hearing will do as well as the fact of simply having the detector information available you when checking the results on the screen. You don't have to see it or touch it, it just has to be available for you to know. A detector or a supercomputer can have it also but if they won't give it too you then it will not effect the results.
There seems to be a clear difference here.

But yes, we see, read, experience something different if information is not available. Keep in mind that having or not having information should not effect anything in the physical world. This is counter intuitive in the Newtonian, physical model.
There are no particles/interactions that can explain how this could possibly happen. How could a wave "know" information about it is available to a consciousness?? This is not possible in the current model. What's weirder is that this is the substance of the physical world. Consciousness seems to be the only factor concerning the creation of this substance. This has profound implications.

I think the limit on knowledge of position/momentum, the probabilistic nature of mass/energy and the random chaos of the subatomic world is what ends up giving a sense of time to consciousness. The quantum sub-world is probably needed to give a seemingly solid but still unpredictable future experience. If the quantum world were Newtonian and like little billiard balls what would happen?

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

Thanks for the link.
In the earlier experiment where the physicist is eliminated after collapsing the wave (assuming all information is bound by light speed here) the wave MUST remain collapsed even if the scientist is disintegrated.

Otherwise after the first scientist is removed, another scientist could come into the room, see the wave as it was before the first man collapsed it - as a wave and all would seem fine. The problem is that another man located in space a few light minutes away could potentially suddenly decide to look in his telescope and see the photons carrying the image of the first scientist with the wave collapsed, holding up a sign with the detector information. He could even video the scene.

If he then got in his spaceship with the video (he stopped looking and missed the disintegration part) and went to the lab he would find the 2nd scientist who has seen only the wave version. When the photons from the telescope scientist reached him would the wave suddenly change to particles?
And when the telescope scientist arrived at the lab with the video there would be a paradoxial violation of some sort.


The erasure experiment is usually interpreted as - if a consciousness learns particle information from a past event then the past event changes to fit the present circumstances.

You're welcome. What I was saying though is that it doesn't 'remain' collapsed because the 'collapse' information was destroyed. In the scenario you described, the scientist who actually caused the collapse, even if he was destroyed, sent out information to another, 3rd, scientist who was then able to reach the 2nd one. I'm saying that if the 1st scientist saw a 'collapsed wavefunction' and that information could not reach anyone else by any means possible (i.e. outside of his light cone so to speak), those people would not see the collapsed wavefunction that the 1st scientist saw. There would be no paradox, it would be the same as the detector with scrambled data scenario. We 'know' that the detector essentially measured the electron as it passed through the slits but because it didn't tell us anything useful, the electron still had the interference pattern. When it did give us the clumping pattern, was when information was available to us whether or not that information could come to us in the future or not. So, what would happen in the scenario you just described here would be that the 2nd scientist would see the collapse so that when the 3rd scientist came in, there would be no paradox of sorts. However, that doesn't mean that the wavefunction 'must' remain collapsed. This also reminds me of the advanced and retarded waves used in the Transactional Interpretation I also posted on earlier.

There are simultaneous interactions, that was predicted in the EPR paradox used to prove quantum mechanics was wrong - because it requires simultaneous interactions between entangled particles. In 1982 Alain Aspect proved the interactions were in fact faster than light. Recent experiments have confirmed that to a much speedier degree. We can't ever measure "simultaneous" literally of course but the interactions are proven to be much faster than light and probably are instant like the math says. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance.

Well, not that the interaction is simultaneous, but more like the whole thing is a single interaction as it operates at the same energy level (or something like that, it's been about a year since I read something pertaining to this issue)... As for the 'faster than light' travel, I had also read somewhere that the interaction cannot be used to transmit 'useful' information faster than the speed of light. This means that we're still stuck at 'up to' speed of light transfer of information concerning the world around us.

For all we know the wave collapse information might also be instant which changes things. No tests have been done for that. It is a violation of Special Relativity to have casual events happen instantly. They should test for that anyway.

Eyesight isn't required to collapse a wave, just thoughts. Hearing will do as well as the fact of simply having the detector information available you when checking the results on the screen. You don't have to see it or touch it, it just has to be available for you to know. A detector or a supercomputer can have it also but if they won't give it too you then it will not effect the results.
There seems to be a clear difference here.

There is no clear difference though, except for the person doing the detection. if it was another person doing the detection, acting as the detector, and if they won't give you the information, then it is the same situation as if it were the supercomputer. I agree that the information just has to be available for you to know for you to see the collapsed wavefunction, and I think you would agree with me that this information could come from any source, especially from another person. The problem with just thoughts though is that while most of the time it gives accurate results, it can 'create' something that really isn't there and would contradict what interactions are actually happening (i.e. hallucinations).

But yes, we see, read, experience something different if information is not available. Keep in mind that having or not having information should not effect anything in the physical world. This is counter intuitive in the Newtonian, physical model.
There are no particles/interactions that can explain how this could possibly happen. How could a wave "know" information about it is available to a consciousness?? This is not possible in the current model. What's weirder is that this is the substance of the physical world. Consciousness seems to be the only factor concerning the creation of this substance. This has profound implications.

I think the limit on knowledge of position/momentum, the probabilistic nature of mass/energy and the random chaos of the subatomic world is what ends up giving a sense of time to consciousness. The quantum sub-world is probably needed to give a seemingly solid but still unpredictable future experience. If the quantum world were Newtonian and like little billiard balls what would happen?

I thought what you've been telling all this time is that having or not having information does affect the physical world, with all this stuff on consciousness and whatnot. In any case though, I'd agree to that statement that the 'physical' world is not affected by what we 'know'. And about consciousness itself, I think I said this previously somewhere but I'm of the opinion that consciousness in the sense of a 'knowledgeable' observer is an illusion because all that makes up consciousness is the same stuff that makes up the rest of a particle's interactions. Therefore, the wavefunction doesn't need to 'know' what consciousness 'knows', only interact according to the rules we've found through quantum mechanics, and thus it only seems as though it knows. If we see, hear, experience something different than is what is currently of the physical world, that could either be from faulty information or a lack of information (from being outside the light cone or something).

Consciousness only feels as though it were special because you have it, or like to think that you do (well, it certainly makes things easier anyway... >.>). There is no 'creation' of physical substance, only interactions among what is already there, consciousness included. If you think of each particle-wave as acting on its own based on the environment it's in and the interactions it's involved in as having a bit of consciousness, then it becomes apparent that the 'rules' that I had mentioned upon above fit together with it and there are no paradoxes.

As for the sense of time and continuity, I'm not sure of that just yet, but I'm guessing it is closely related to the 'interval' required for any information to travel anywhere else (at the speed of light). that and spacetime is such that if not traveling through the space dimensions, particle-waves travel through the time dimension. I'm less sure about continuity and the direction of time, except that I think that at the fundamental level, the wavefunctions are continuous with respect to spacetime and perhaps one of the directions wins out just like how with the weak interaction, left handed particles win out.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Melchior

You're welcome. What I was saying though is that it doesn't 'remain' collapsed because the 'collapse' information was destroyed. In the scenario you described, the scientist who actually caused the collapse, even if he was destroyed, sent out information to another, 3rd, scientist who was then able to reach the 2nd one. I'm saying that if the 1st scientist saw a 'collapsed wavefunction' and that information could not reach anyone else by any means possible (i.e. outside of his light cone so to speak), those people would not see the collapsed wavefunction that the 1st scientist saw. There would be no paradox, it would be the same as the detector with scrambled data scenario. We 'know' that the detector essentially measured the electron as it passed through the slits but because it didn't tell us anything useful, the electron still had the interference pattern. When it did give us the clumping pattern, was when information was available to us whether or not that information could come to us in the future or not. So, what would happen in the scenario you just described here would be that the 2nd scientist would see the collapse so that when the 3rd scientist came in, there would be no paradox of sorts. However, that doesn't mean that the wavefunction 'must' remain collapsed. This also reminds me of the advanced and retarded waves used in the Transactional Interpretation I also posted on earlier.

If your familiar with light cone speak then the telescope scientist (S_t) is located out of scientist #1 (S_1) light cone in a space like separation 10 light minutes to the left. So he will enter S_1's PAST light cone in 10 minutes. When that light hits S_t he will see the wave collapsed. At that same instant S_2 enters the lab and sees the uncollapsed wave. S_t has re-collapsed the wave but the light will not arrive to reflect this for another ~10 min. S_2 cannot have knowledge about S_t for 10 min. So we end up with 2 different descriptions of 1 event.

Unless the wave remains collapsed the entire time, then there is no paradox.

I think it's also a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Well, not that the interaction is simultaneous, but more like the whole thing is a single interaction as it operates at the same energy level (or something like that, it's been about a year since I read something pertaining to this issue)... As for the 'faster than light' travel, I had also read somewhere that the interaction cannot be used to transmit 'useful' information faster than the speed of light. This means that we're still stuck at 'up to' speed of light transfer of information concerning the world around us.

I know I am very familiar with entangled particles. I'm not saying anything about communication, just that the particles communicate information faster than light. There are different ideas about how this happens but there is no explanation as to what's really going on.

Originally Posted by Melchior

There is no clear difference though, except for the person doing the detection. if it was another person doing the detection, acting as the detector, and if they won't give you the information, then it is the same situation as if it were the supercomputer. I agree that the information just has to be available for you to know for you to see the collapsed wavefunction, and I think you would agree with me that this information could come from any source, especially from another person. The problem with just thoughts though is that while most of the time it gives accurate results, it can 'create' something that really isn't there and would contradict what interactions are actually happening (i.e. hallucinations).

But if a person in the room with you collapses the wave but won't tell you the information the wave is still collapsed. If a computer has the information but won't give it to you then the interference pattern stays.

If a thought is inaccurate that will not effect any outcome. If the computer spits out random information but the scientist is drunk and thinks it's correct information the wave will not collapse.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I thought what you've been telling all this time is that having or not having information does affect the physical world, with all this stuff on consciousness and whatnot. In any case though, I'd agree to that statement that the 'physical' world is not affected by what we 'know'. And about consciousness itself, I think I said this previously somewhere but I'm of the opinion that consciousness in the sense of a 'knowledgeable' observer is an illusion because all that makes up consciousness is the same stuff that makes up the rest of a particle's interactions. Therefore, the wavefunction doesn't need to 'know' what consciousness 'knows', only interact according to the rules we've found through quantum mechanics, and thus it only seems as though it knows. If we see, hear, experience something different than is what is currently of the physical world, that could either be from faulty information or a lack of information (from being outside the light cone or something).

No that's right! I have been saying that having or not having information does affect the physical world, with all this stuff on consciousness and whatnot.

I'm saying it in the sense of "wow". If I were a mechanistic Newtonian positivist expecting conscious function to have the same results as any other thing I would be shocked that there are all these violations of known physics.
Even without the observer problem we still have the issue of photons "knowing" if someone is measuring or not. There are no secret particles communicating to the photons (or any other small object). At least not within our current understanding. I hear people say the connection to consciousness is an illusion but the evidence to me is clear enough to say physics leans in the direction of the observer having a deeper connection then the Newtonian model predicts.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Consciousness only feels as though it were special because you have it, or like to think that you do (well, it certainly makes things easier anyway... >.>). There is no 'creation' of physical substance, only interactions among what is already there, consciousness included. If you think of each particle-wave as acting on its own based on the environment it's in and the interactions it's involved in as having a bit of consciousness, then it becomes apparent that the 'rules' that I had mentioned upon above fit together with it and there are no paradoxes.

I call it creation because the wave does not exist, it is a mathematical description. From "potentiality" an observer brings it into space time.
Assigning a bit of consciousness to interactions and envirnoment seems to abstract for me. If that were so than a detector detecting a photon should collapse it.

Originally Posted by Melchior

As for the sense of time and continuity, I'm not sure of that just yet, but I'm guessing it is closely related to the 'interval' required for any information to travel anywhere else (at the speed of light). that and spacetime is such that if not traveling through the space dimensions, particle-waves travel through the time dimension. I'm less sure about continuity and the direction of time, except that I think that at the fundamental level, the wavefunctions are continuous with respect to spacetime and perhaps one of the directions wins out just like how with the weak interaction, left handed particles win out.

Sounds reasonable on the time and continuity idea.

I think waves are just ideas that apply to quanta or a small piece of a field that permeates all space and time. A photon particle (a quanta of the electromagnetic field) is a slight disturbance in that field.
That is quantum field theory.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

If your familiar with light cone speak then the telescope scientist (S_t) is located out of scientist #1 (S_1) light cone in a space like separation 10 light minutes to the left. So he will enter S_1's PAST light cone in 10 minutes. When that light hits S_t he will see the wave collapsed. At that same instant S_2 enters the lab and sees the uncollapsed wave. S_t has re-collapsed the wave but the light will not arrive to reflect this for another ~10 min. S_2 cannot have knowledge about S_t for 10 min. So we end up with 2 different descriptions of 1 event.

Unless the wave remains collapsed the entire time, then there is no paradox.

I think it's also a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I see, I see. However, I think there's something overlooked here as well. This information that S_2 sees after entering the lab (the uncollapsed wave), isn't on the screen as an interference pattern. because if it is on the screen, then the information that was sent to S_t was of the past and doesn't affect this new set of interfering photons. However, I'm assuming that it is due to the data readouts from the experiment S_1 that S_2 reads when arriving. however when arrived, the which-path information was essentially erased along with S_1. In the case that the data is strictly that from S_1 of the final pattern and the which path data was erased, then I would agree with you that S_2 would see the clumping pattern in the data, because it was that which was recorded and in a sense relaying the which-path data along with it, and so in effect, the knowledge of the which-path data was not completely erased in this scenario which would solve the paradox I'm guessing (i.e. that situation that would have caused the paradox never actually happened so it would be a situation that could not occur). in other words, I'm still sticking with the idea that if the information is not available (i suppose I should also add 'in whatever form it's in' as well), then the observation is interference. Sorry about not catching that earlier, I had thought something strange was going on in this problem... Hopefully it's a valid error and not just something I made up to press my point... sigh... >.<

I'll add this bit here too because the ideas and results from this experiment are also somewhat relevant. Looking at the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, there are similarities to the data being incomprehensible unless the which path data is also known. i.e. if the data for which-path was erased post-detection, an interference pattern is seen in the data, albeit here for both ways, detect and non-detect prior to this information is also the same, which seems like some form of interference in of itself... >.>

the transactional interpretation, from what little I read of it also supports the idea that the wavefunction was collapsed the entire time, because some standing wave is created between the sender and receiver through time or something like that, but for some reason, i have my reservations of it, same with the afshar experiment, but that's probably just me feeling uneasy about it. future affecting the present and all...

Also, how would it be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?

I know I am very familiar with entangled particles. I'm not saying anything about communication, just that the particles communicate information faster than light. There are different ideas about how this happens but there is no explanation as to what's really going on.

Heh, what exactly do you do anyway?

But if a person in the room with you collapses the wave but won't tell you the information the wave is still collapsed. If a computer has the information but won't give it to you then the interference pattern stays.

If a thought is inaccurate that will not effect any outcome. If the computer spits out random information but the scientist is drunk and thinks it's correct information the wave will not collapse.

If the person was able to see the collapse then by all means the data should be there for you to see it as well, after all two people aren't so different, so whatever gave that first person the information could potentially also give you the information. the difference with a computer is that if it won't give you the information, it won't give anyone else the information either. I'm suddenly reminded of the Chinese Room for some reason. Essentially, I think that if the computer was replaced by the computer and a person reading the output, if the latter didn't give you any information and you couldn't get any information you wouldn't otherwise get if you strictly had the computer, things would not change (this includes the person just telling you if there was interference or not for the same reasons I stated with the scientist's scenario above about percolating information).

No that's right! I have been saying that having or not having information does affect the physical world, with all this stuff on consciousness and whatnot.

I'm saying it in the sense of "wow". If I were a mechanistic Newtonian positivist expecting conscious function to have the same results as any other thing I would be shocked that there are all these violations of known physics.
Even without the observer problem we still have the issue of photons "knowing" if someone is measuring or not. There are no secret particles communicating to the photons (or any other small object). At least not within our current understanding. I hear people say the connection to consciousness is an illusion but the evidence to me is clear enough to say physics leans in the direction of the observer having a deeper connection then the Newtonian model predicts.

Luckily, we're not working off of the Newtonian model anymore.

I call it creation because the wave does not exist, it is a mathematical description. From "potentiality" an observer brings it into space time.
Assigning a bit of consciousness to interactions and envirnoment seems to abstract for me. If that were so than a detector detecting a photon should collapse it.

I say that it 'does' in the sense that the detector has the information of the collapse. However, that information will not do anyone else any good because it can't get to anyone else. Furthermore, I think the detector could only interact using this information if it were able to pass this information on to what it wanted to interact with (so that they were on the same page, so to speak ).

Sounds reasonable on the time and continuity idea.

I think waves are just ideas that apply to quanta or a small piece of a field that permeates all space and time. A photon particle (a quanta of the electromagnetic field) is a slight disturbance in that field.
That is quantum field theory.

I briefly looked at the wiki article on QFT, but quite frankly, I don't know too much about it, although I've certainly heard the name being dropped enough times by one of my professors. I am glad the LHC is back online now though.

[jp06]

What is the purpose of consciousness?

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by jp06

What is the purpose of consciousness?

I really wish I knew the answer to that, but unfortunately, I haven't yet come across any answers that I felt were both 'reasonable' and 'correct'.

The best I have at the moment is that there is no intrinsic purpose to consciousness. This is certainly reasonable, but I'm somewhat doubtful that it is 'correct' because it still doesn't explain why it exists, or appears to exist.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by jp06

What is the purpose of consciousness?

Originally Posted by Melchior

I really wish I knew the answer to that, but unfortunately, I haven't yet come across any answers that I felt were both 'reasonable' and 'correct'.

The best I have at the moment is that there is no intrinsic purpose to consciousness. This is certainly reasonable, but I'm somewhat doubtful that it is 'correct' because it still doesn't explain why it exists, or appears to exist.

In my humble opinion, consciousness does not "appear" to exist, but rather, *IS* existence itself. You can't have one without the other, in other words.

So, you could say, that the purpose of consciousness is existence. But, why tie purposes into anything? Why do things NEED a purpose? Does it necessarily makes things better or worse for a purpose to exist?

Consciousness is existence and existence is life and life is joy (unless you are resisting that joy). You are here to experience (which is also intrinsically connected to awareness by the way). You are here to experience and move through joy and love in all of it's forms. Expansion = joy. Contraction = being miserable.

Any more questions?

[jp06]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

You are here to experience and move through joy and love in all of it's forms. Expansion = joy. Contraction = being miserable.

Any more questions?

Well I would still like to ask: "why?" to the above.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Melchior

I really wish I knew the answer to that, but unfortunately, I haven't yet come across any answers that I felt were both 'reasonable' and 'correct'.

The best I have at the moment is that there is no intrinsic purpose to consciousness. This is certainly reasonable, but I'm somewhat doubtful that it is 'correct' because it still doesn't explain why it exists, or appears to exist.

The universe without consciousness is like a computer without a monitor.

The software program could be running, but without the monitor there would be no way of displaying the ultimate phenomenal attributes that the software describes.

Without consciousness, the entire universe would exist as a vast field of quantum information with nothing to transform that information into reality.

Without consciousness, there would be absolutely no purpose to a rose's color or fragrance, or the taste and feel of a lover's kiss, or the sound of music – all of which would be non-existent without the presence of consciousness to create, experience, and enjoy.

seeds

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by jp06

Well I would still like to ask: "why?" to the above.

And I would like to say, "Well, why not?".

Can you imagine a more beautiful and satisfying purpose than eternal expansion, eternal joy, eternal experiences, eternal creativity?

If you are asking WHY things exist, the answer is very simple. So simple, in fact, that your logical mind will cry out that it wants a more complex answer, because our egos LOVE complexity. The ego is all about denial of divinity and in denying divinity, we are denying knowledge, and in denying knowledge, things seem mysterious or unknown, or hard to understand (in other words, "complex") .

But it is actually very simple and here it is: everything exists, because nothingness cannot.

Nothingness is nothingness. It has no reality. SUBSTANCE (not the lack thereof), is ALL that CAN be. This is why ABUNDANCE is the natural state of the universe, as opposed to LACK.

Existence has always existed and always will. Nothingness has never existed, and NEVER will.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Consciousness is existence and existence is life and life is joy (unless you are resisting that joy). You are here to experience (which is also intrinsically connected to awareness by the way). You are here to experience and move through joy and love in all of it's forms. Expansion = joy. Contraction = being miserable.

If you can't experience joy or love, does that mean that you aren't alive? Maybe I'm misinterpreting those words, but I'm fairly certain that there are quite a few microorganisms that are considered to be alive, unable to feel joy as we do, react as we do, love as we do. There are also things that exist, or perhaps appear to exist to what we attribute as consciousness, that aren't 'conscious' as we are, but instead labeled as inert, dead, etc. like the detector in the double slit experiment that was discussed above. Are these things unable to exist without 'us' in a sense allowing them to exist? I guess what I'm trying to say here is that things like consciousness and love aren't something necessarily universal, but perhaps more of an 'evolutionary abstraction', developing and emerging out of a universe more chaotic in nature. Maybe that's the reason why, evolution (although, not necessarily joy ).

Originally Posted by seeds

The universe without consciousness is like a computer without a monitor.

The software program could be running, but without the monitor there would be no way of displaying the ultimate phenomenal attributes that the software describes.

Without consciousness, the entire universe would exist as a vast field of quantum information with nothing to transform that information into reality.

Without consciousness, there would be absolutely no purpose to a rose's color or fragrance, or the taste and feel of a lover's kiss, or the sound of music – all of which would be non-existent without the presence of consciousness to create, experience, and enjoy.

seeds

I suppose, it's like consciousness interfaces with reality, but is actually somewhat separate from it, perhaps to the extent of unplugging the monitor and connecting it/reinterfacing it to a different computer kind of thing. I think that's what has been thrown my way for pretty much the entire duration of this thread. Going off of my previous comment about evolution, what would you say to the scenario where regions of the computer/software becoming 'self aware' based on the operation of the 'software'?

Originally Posted by Anagogy

And I would like to say, "Well, why not?".

Can you imagine a more beautiful and satisfying purpose than eternal expansion, eternal joy, eternal experiences, eternal creativity?

If you are asking WHY things exist, the answer is very simple. So simple, in fact, that your logical mind will cry out that it wants a more complex answer, because our egos LOVE complexity. The ego is all about denial of divinity and in denying divinity, we are denying knowledge, and in denying knowledge, things seem mysterious or unknown, or hard to understand (in other words, "complex") .

But it is actually very simple and here it is: everything exists, because nothingness cannot.

Nothingness is nothingness. It has no reality. SUBSTANCE (not the lack thereof), is ALL that CAN be. This is why ABUNDANCE is the natural state of the universe, as opposed to LACK.

Existence has always existed and always will. Nothingness has never existed, and NEVER will.

Clever word play there. This immediately reminded me of Vacuum Energy, btw. I think though, that nothing can 'not' exist the same way that everything does exist. This is because there is essentially no point in asking the question of if nothing can exist because if it exists, it can't be nothing. it can only be nothing if it doesn't exist... hooray for circular arguments, sometimes, they're the only way to go... you probably already get what I'm saying here though, seeing as you wrote the above comments.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

If you can't experience joy or love, does that mean that you aren't alive? Maybe I'm misinterpreting those words, but I'm fairly certain that there are quite a few microorganisms that are considered to be alive, unable to feel joy as we do, react as we do, love as we do.

But then, how can you know this without being those very things? Do you see my point? It is my understanding that micro-organisms enjoy a very strong sense of "well-being" when they are functioning in harmony with their surrounding environment. That well being could be equated with love and joy. Just because they don't have the level of complexity that human thoughts have, does not mean that they aren't having experiences nonetheless.

Now, I don't have any more proof than you do -- just my intuition that tells me very emphatically that this is so.

Originally Posted by Melchior

There are also things that exist, or perhaps appear to exist to what we attribute as consciousness, that aren't 'conscious' as we are, but instead labeled as inert, dead, etc. like the detector in the double slit experiment that was discussed above. Are these things unable to exist without 'us' in a sense allowing them to exist?

Depends what you mean by "us". In the highest sense, all is one being, so nothing exists without "us", but as you intend the question, I would say to you that ALL of creation is conscious, even that which you label as "inert".

It is not conscious in the way that homosapiens are self-referentially conscious, but it is conscious nonetheless. All energy is conscious of movement of some kind or another. We do not "allow" or "disallow" anything from existing. Everything already exists and always has. We do "allow" what enters our experience, or conscious reality, however.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that things like consciousness and love aren't something necessarily universal, but perhaps more of an 'evolutionary abstraction', developing and emerging out of a universe more chaotic in nature. Maybe that's the reason why, evolution (although, not necessarily joy ).

Well if that is your belief, then that is your belief, and I'm not out to convert you. Evolution occurs from my perspective, but not the way scientists necessarily think it does. The watchmaker is not blind from my perspective, but rather is very conscious of evolution and enjoys "accidental creations" (not to deny the existence of accidental evolution, but rather to qualify it's purpose as a vehicle for experience). Although "accidental" is something of a misnomer, as the "accidents" are intentional, making them "accidents on purpose" which is quite the oxymoron.

From an physical evolutionary standpoint, consciousness is not even necessary. Organisms could have evolved completely autonomically. We could have been a bunch of unconscious "stimulus/response" machines. However, we are not. We have sentience. Physical descriptions of phenomenological qualities of consciousness always fail in my opinion, because they are illogical from an evolutionary standpoint.

There is no evolutionary reason for things like qualia to develop. We could devise a thought experiment where there exist a bunch of zombies that acted just like regular humans, but they lack subjective awareness. You could point to an apple and say, "what color?" and they would respond "red", but no experience of "red" would be involved. It would be analogous to a computer that performs complex operations involving information but doesn't have a "subjective experience" of said operations.

Now, if consciousness is an emergent property, why would it evolve? The fact that we can logically conceive of a physical world that is devoid of consciousness, yet behaves identically, objectively speaking, points to the logic that it is NOT necessary from a physical standpoint. Yet......it is there. We FEEL things. We have experiences. Or, at least, I know I do. I can't speak for you. Perhaps you are a zombie!

I don't believe consciousness is so easily reduced.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

But then, how can you know this without being those very things? Do you see my point? It is my understanding that micro-organisms enjoy a very strong sense of "well-being" when they are functioning in harmony with their surrounding environment. That well being could be equated with love and joy. Just because they don't have the level of complexity that human thoughts have, does not mean that they aren't having experiences nonetheless.

Now, I don't have any more proof than you do -- just my intuition that tells me very emphatically that this is so.

Well, I, for the most part, agree with you here. What I'm saying is that even this "well being" isn't love or joy though. However, that 'harmony', that aspect of 'living' that leads to 'growth', perpetuation and evolution of a pattern, I think is something more universal. As for how I know, I don't know if it counts, but I've done thought experiments where I was essentially an 'inert' particle 'experiencing' the world. (yeah, that's a lot of little ' s around the words, but they help the fact that I'm not using the 'standard' definitions )

Depends what you mean by "us". In the highest sense, all is one being, so nothing exists without "us", but as you intend the question, I would say to you that ALL of creation is conscious, even that which you label as "inert".

It is not conscious in the way that homosapiens are self-referentially conscious, but it is conscious nonetheless. All energy is conscious of movement of some kind or another. We do not "allow" or "disallow" anything from existing. Everything already exists and always has. We do "allow" what enters our experience, or conscious reality, however.

And again, I agree with you for the most part, up until the end. Why an exception at the very end? why hold onto something that you've essentially just rejected as true?

Well if that is your belief, then that is your belief, and I'm not out to convert you. Evolution occurs from my perspective, but not the way scientists necessarily think it does. The watchmaker is not blind from my perspective, but rather is very conscious of evolution and enjoys "accidental creations" (not to deny the existence of accidental evolution, but rather to qualify it's purpose as a vehicle for experience). Although "accidental" is something of a misnomer, as the "accidents" are intentional, making them "accidents on purpose" which is quite the oxymoron.

From an physical evolutionary standpoint, consciousness is not even necessary. Organisms could have evolved completely autonomically. We could have been a bunch of unconscious "stimulus/response" machines. However, we are not. We have sentience. Physical descriptions of phenomenological qualities of consciousness always fail in my opinion, because they are illogical from an evolutionary standpoint.

There is no evolutionary reason for things like qualia to develop. We could devise a thought experiment where there exist a bunch of zombies that acted just like regular humans, but they lack subjective awareness. You could point to an apple and say, "what color?" and they would respond "red", but no experience of "red" would be involved. It would be analogous to a computer that performs complex operations involving information but doesn't have a "subjective experience" of said operations.

Now, if consciousness is an emergent property, why would it evolve? The fact that we can logically conceive of a physical world that is devoid of consciousness, yet behaves identically, objectively speaking, points to the logic that it is NOT necessary from a physical standpoint. Yet......it is there. We FEEL things. We have experiences. Or, at least, I know I do. I can't speak for you. Perhaps you are a zombie!

I don't believe consciousness is so easily reduced.

Perhaps I am, then. Where do you draw the line between consciousness and unconsciousness? You've already told me that everything, even "inert" matter is, so to speak, conscious (i.e. you've already reduced consciousness yourself, even if you don't believe that to be the case). If those two worlds behave identically even though one doesn't have 'consciousness' in the sense that qualia doesn't exist, then I would propose that qualia doesn't necessarily exist for "us" either. Perhaps qualia is another one of those 'evolutionary abstractions' that describes a rather complex stimulus/response mechanism. Why would things like that and consciousness as we know it evolve? It would seem that, logically, there are actually evolutionary benefits for it to happen that way, even if you can't come up with a good reason for why exactly.

As a note though, I would also say that in the case of your 'zombie', if everything objectively were lined up right, then theoretically, that 'zombie' would be conscious just as we are. If it isn't, then it's a different world altogether and can't be used to justify this one. In a sense, the question of comparison is somewhat unanswerable, if the two are actually the same, then there's nothing to compare, if they are different, then you can't compare them either. Granted... it does make it a lot easier to 'live' under the assumption that you are 'alive'.

Also, a relevant xkcd comic.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Well, I, for the most part, agree with you here. What I'm saying is that even this "well being" isn't love or joy though. However, that 'harmony', that aspect of 'living' that leads to 'growth', perpetuation and evolution of a pattern, I think is something more universal. As for how I know, I don't know if it counts, but I've done thought experiments where I was essentially an 'inert' particle 'experiencing' the world. (yeah, that's a lot of little ' s around the words, but they help the fact that I'm not using the 'standard' definitions )

I see. You define well being differently than I do. I see joy, love, [insert positive emotion here], yada yada, as all the same thing. From my perspective, there are actually only two emotions. One feels good, the other feels bad, with a continuum of varying intensity between the two. We give them different names based on the circumstances of their arising (and based on their intensity level), but there is a positive experience and a negative experience, and I believe they are universal to all consciousness.

Originally Posted by Melchior

And again, I agree with you for the most part, up until the end. Why an exception at the very end? why hold onto something that you've essentially just rejected as true?

I think I'm not explaining myself clearly enough. I see no contradiction.

All that exists is experience (which is consciousness). Everything already exists in pure potentiality from my perspective. This would be the highest expansion of consciousness. The level our focus exists at is but a portion of the whole, thus, variations appear at our level. The absolute sees "wholes", but relative beings (such as ourselves) see portions. Again these "wholes" and "portions" are merely experience. The absolute connects all the relative realities. The intangible is the container for the tangible -- the unquantifiable contains the quantifiable.

Creation only exists at the relative level of reality, because to create, there must be change. If everything already exists, there can be no creation. It needs some sort of backdrop, you see. There has to be some sort of contrast to differentiate anything from anything. So relativity also involves duality, necessarily, just as result of not taking in the whole picture at once.

Because we are portions of the whole, we can choose what we allow into those portions (or conscious experience). This would be equivalent to reality creation. Conscious attention causes cognitive objects to be attracted into our relative experience or existence, from the continuum of infinite potentiality. This is "particle collapse", kind of.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Perhaps I am, then. Where do you draw the line between consciousness and unconsciousness? You've already told me that everything, even "inert" matter is, so to speak, conscious (i.e. you've already reduced consciousness yourself, even if you don't believe that to be the case).

How is it reduced? My point was simply to illustrate the idea that consciousness is not simply an artifact of neurology. It's either everywhere, or it's nowhere, in other words.

From my perspective, consciousness can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without consciousness, because it is an expression of consciousness.

Originally Posted by Melchior

If those two worlds behave identically even though one doesn't have 'consciousness' in the sense that qualia doesn't exist, then I would propose that qualia doesn't necessarily exist for "us" either. Perhaps qualia is another one of those 'evolutionary abstractions' that describes a rather complex stimulus/response mechanism. Why would things like that and consciousness as we know it evolve? It would seem that, logically, there are actually evolutionary benefits for it to happen that way, even if you can't come up with a good reason for why exactly.

Can you tell me what that evolutionary benefit is? Why have any subjectivity at all? The thought experiment is actually a variation of the famous thought experiment by David Chalmers where he claimed that since it is logically conceivable to have an identical physical system, but without qualia, that qualia and sentience cannot be explained by physical properties alone.

But aside from hypothetical thought experiments, I find people who have spontaneous psychic experiences where they were given information that was clearly beyond the reach of their physical apparatus far more compelling evidence of the non-locality of consciousness. I've seen WAY too many examples of that phenomenon to doubt it's reality, even if many scientists stubbornly continue to do so.

Originally Posted by Melchior

As a note though, I would also say that in the case of your 'zombie', if everything objectively were lined up right, then theoretically, that 'zombie' would be conscious just as we are. If it isn't, then it's a different world altogether and can't be used to justify this one. In a sense, the question of comparison is somewhat unanswerable, if the two are actually the same, then there's nothing to compare, if they are different, then you can't compare them either. Granted... it does make it a lot easier to 'live' under the assumption that you are 'alive'.

Fair enough. And nice comic btw.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

I see. You define well being differently than I do. I see joy, love, [insert positive emotion here], yada yada, as all the same thing. From my perspective, there are actually only two emotions. One feels good, the other feels bad, with a continuum of varying intensity between the two. We give them different names based on the circumstances of their arising (and based on their intensity level), but there is a positive experience and a negative experience, and I believe they are universal to all consciousness.

Ok then, as long as you hold the notion that everything has consciousness (again though, when I say everything, I really mean everything).

I think I'm not explaining myself clearly enough. I see no contradiction.

All that exists is experience (which is consciousness). Everything already exists in pure potentiality from my perspective. This would be the highest expansion of consciousness. The level our focus exists at is but a portion of the whole, thus, variations appear at our level. The absolute sees "wholes", but relative beings (such as ourselves) see portions. Again these "wholes" and "portions" are merely experience. The absolute connects all the relative realities. The intangible is the container for the tangible -- the unquantifiable contains the quantifiable.

Creation only exists at the relative level of reality, because to create, there must be change. If everything already exists, there can be no creation. It needs some sort of backdrop, you see. There has to be some sort of contrast to differentiate anything from anything. So relativity also involves duality, necessarily, just as result of not taking in the whole picture at once.

Because we are portions of the whole, we can choose what we allow into those portions (or conscious experience). This would be equivalent to reality creation. Conscious attention causes cognitive objects to be attracted into our relative experience or existence, from the continuum of infinite potentiality. This is "particle collapse", kind of.

So, pretty much a separation between 'you' and the rest of the universe, even though above you said that everything was/has consciousness. So there's really two consciousnesses you're talking about here then, one that is the quality of all of existence, and one is the one that you experience.

How is it reduced? My point was simply to illustrate the idea that consciousness is not simply an artifact of neurology. It's either everywhere, or it's nowhere, in other words.

From my perspective, consciousness can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without consciousness, because it is an expression of consciousness.

what happened to being a 'portion of the whole'? Also, what happened to consciousness being a property of everything? You see, the main reason why I adopted my current views is because they were the only ones I had come up with that were relatively internally consistent and reasonable/probable at the same time, no questions of why something seemed a bit off given what was already said.

Can you tell me what that evolutionary benefit is? Why have any subjectivity at all? The thought experiment is actually a variation of the famous thought experiment by David Chalmers where he claimed that since it is logically conceivable to have an identical physical system, but without qualia, that qualia and sentience cannot be explained by physical properties alone.

But aside from hypothetical thought experiments, I find people who have spontaneous psychic experiences where they were given information that was clearly beyond the reach of their physical apparatus far more compelling evidence of the non-locality of consciousness. I've seen WAY too many examples of that phenomenon to doubt it's reality, even if many scientists stubbornly continue to do so.

cuts down on needs for processing perhaps. give a 'reason' for following instinct whereas other mechanisms such as pure logical processing while would work, might be susceptible to failure, i.e. a more redundant system for better survivability. Also, there's no guarantee that this subjectivity or qualia is 'real', if i recall correctly, I remember saying something along the lines that subjectivity is an 'illusion' of sorts. Sounds almost like we're on the verge of a zombie apocalypse, huh?

Also, I never argued that consciousness was restricted to the brain or was local for that matter. If you read my response to Rockchick26 in my first 'lengthy' post on this thread, you'll see what I mean. Speaking of which, after looking back at it, it seems as though I'm simply repeating myself in this current discussion... sigh... >.>

Seriously, all this is doing is making me more and more solid in my current beliefs, the fundamentals of it anyway... the details will work themselves out sooner or later (btw, thanks joelr for some of this already ) Here's hoping that you will try to see the world my way, or at least attempt to explore the possibility of it, and then tell me why you think it is wrong so that I can evolve, perhaps to something similar to your views, or perhaps to something altogether different.

Fair enough. And nice comic btw.

lol, xkcd is pretty awesome (well for the most part).

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Ok then, as long as you hold the notion that everything has consciousness (again though, when I say everything, I really mean everything).

I do.

Originally Posted by Melchior

So, pretty much a separation between 'you' and the rest of the universe, even though above you said that everything was/has consciousness. So there's really two consciousnesses you're talking about here then, one that is the quality of all of existence, and one is the one that you experience.

The separation is all mental though. In consciousness, all information is communicating with all other information, normally. But when the consciousness is filtered through imaginary "structures" like "selves" or "egos" or "bodies" it limits the flow of information, creating the illusion of separation. All objects of form are created by the limiting of consciousness or information.

What I was really trying to communicate was the concept of "planes" of consciousness. The picture looks different depending on where you are standing. Not to say that is IS different, just that it looks different. It's like a river that is flowing down a hill, but you can only see downstream. If you are at the mouth of the river (at the top of the hill), you can see the whole thing -- how it began, where it is going, how it will end, but if you are only half way down it, you can only see a portion of the whole river (of consciousness) -- perhaps only up till the next bend in the river.

The whole and portion description is kinda like that, where you are on the river determines how broad your perception is and how much of the water you consciously identify with, if that makes any sense. It is all still one connected body of water, but the structure of the stream limits HOW the consciousness flows. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Melchior

what happened to being a 'portion of the whole'? Also, what happened to consciousness being a property of everything? You see, the main reason why I adopted my current views is because they were the only ones I had come up with that were relatively internally consistent and reasonable/probable at the same time, no questions of why something seemed a bit off given what was already said.

I can see why you are confused, but the way I see things is actually very internally consistent, I'm just doing a poor job of communicating it to you.

But honestly, I don't see how it is any easier to say it is all physical, than to say it is all consciousness. One is limited by physical laws, and the other has the potential for ANY beingness that could be imagined (including physical laws).

I guess I'm partial to ideas that convey infinite possibility.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Also, I never argued that consciousness was restricted to the brain or was local for that matter. If you read my response to Rockchick26 in my first 'lengthy' post on this thread, you'll see what I mean. Speaking of which, after looking back at it, it seems as though I'm simply repeating myself in this current discussion... sigh... >.>

Looking back, it appears I missed one of your previous posts, which would explain why I was still not altogether clear about what your beliefs were with regard to the "physical consciousness" thing. Perhaps I will have to respond to some things you said in it.

I apologize for being so damn redundant, lol.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Seriously, all this is doing is making me more and more solid in my current beliefs, the fundamentals of it anyway... the details will work themselves out sooner or later (btw, thanks joelr for some of this already ) Here's hoping that you will try to see the world my way, or at least attempt to explore the possibility of it, and then tell me why you think it is wrong so that I can evolve, perhaps to something similar to your views, or perhaps to something altogether different.

I'm afraid I'm still of the same belief system as well. I actually quite like your perspectives, and they are not THAT different from my own. However, personal experiences with lucid dreaming, law of attraction, and various psychic phenomena has made the idea of "virtual matter" in consciousness seem far more plausible to me than a set of immutable (and objective) physical laws, but each to their own.

Best regards.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

The separation is all mental though. In consciousness, all information is communicating with all other information, normally. But when the consciousness is filtered through imaginary "structures" like "selves" or "egos" or "bodies" it limits the flow of information, creating the illusion of separation. All objects of form are created by the limiting of consciousness or information.

What I was really trying to communicate was the concept of "planes" of consciousness. The picture looks different depending on where you are standing. Not to say that is IS different, just that it looks different. It's like a river that is flowing down a hill, but you can only see downstream. If you are at the mouth of the river (at the top of the hill), you can see the whole thing -- how it began, where it is going, how it will end, but if you are only half way down it, you can only see a portion of the whole river (of consciousness) -- perhaps only up till the next bend in the river.

The whole and portion description is kinda like that, where you are on the river determines how broad your perception is and how much of the water you consciously identify with, if that makes any sense. It is all still one connected body of water, but the structure of the stream limits HOW the consciousness flows. Does that make sense?

...

I can see why you are confused, but the way I see things is actually very internally consistent, I'm just doing a poor job of communicating it to you.

But honestly, I don't see how it is any easier to say it is all physical, than to say it is all consciousness. One is limited by physical laws, and the other has the potential for ANY beingness that could be imagined (including physical laws).

I guess I'm partial to ideas that convey infinite possibility.

DISCLAIMER (after the fact): the following may confuse you, or you might completely agree with it. I was attempting to figure out what this thing really was... it's interesting to see where it led me... starts out with questions, results in some somewhat heavy stream-of-consciousness, lol

I'm trying, I'm trying, I really am... My thoughts/talking to myself: I think I'm starting to understand the "planes" of consciousnesses. perhaps we're trying to go uphill then? but why have a picture at all if you can exist without it? everything that you can 'look' at is already created by yourself or am i also misunderstanding this information that consciousness essentially operates on as something that is independent of itself, that the information is really part of consciousness as well? I suppose that must be the case though, but then, where does the structures come into the picture? perhaps they are just an aspect of the whole of consciousness? There's something similar to this from the physical model I work from, a collected system of particles and interactions. Yes, the difference is that one has rules and the other has, well, more... But why is the information limited in the first place? perhaps, there's just a part of the thing that makes it limited. it certainly makes a better compliment to nothingness, I think. granted, i'm more partial to calling it all information as opposed to all consciousness, because without that information it would be nothingness. I suppose that's another property as well? but is there a difference between zero and null/mu? the all is consciousness essentially describes the many, many world hypothesis where an infinite amount of worlds each with its own set of rules exist simultaneously, with even higher "planes" describing the combination of these worlds and so on. of course, then, there can be no 'highest' consciousness because it goes to infinity. no beginning, no end. I'm reminded of the big bounce theory in a way, but that isn't too important because it doesn't need to happen either. the structures exist because they have to then. the all consciousness/information model necessitates the existence of everything, infinitely, of course. Hmm... interesting result: this also means that there's no good reason for qualia to exist for us, except that it has to for something and that something is what is communicating here. in said model, there is also no free will, as everything that can happen does happen. i.e. we're already zombies and always will be. No, if this is what you mean by the all consciousness model, then I don't see any internal inconsistencies in it either, it has all its bases covered, so to speak. It doesn't really make sense to talk about the discoveries of anything, because all that will be discovered anyway. What I write here, may not even get to you, even though somewhere out in the infinite world of information, you will read this. I wonder though, is there really no limit to the information? I suppose not, but the information will be limited in some regions of it. but that's not the whole picture. the reason why I haven't seen anything out of the 'ordinary' is because there must exist a temporal slice of everything that has this to be the case. There will exist information out there, somewhere where I will either accept that this is a possibility and one where I don't, one where I (but there is no 'I' is there, only information working itself out, consciousness doesn't have any role in the matter anymore either, unless consciousness is simply the communication of this information.) Do you know, you've essentially 'killed' yourself completely. You don't exist, existence exists. you are part of that existence and you can't do anything about it. there is no change, because all that change is already all accounted for. Oh dear god, i need to stop myself... now.

Unfortunately, I'm also partial to theories which allow for free will and non-determinism. I think I have figured it out, this whole consciousness(/information) thing that you've proposed, at least to a degree where it has become consistent. Let me tell you, if you haven't already guessed it from what I wrote above, that it has been one a hell of a mind trip. It also brought along with it a sense of deja vu, if that means anything to you. >.>

Granted, I think that it is a possibility; I think, intuitively though, I disregarded this possibility a long time ago in favor of something more... useful... It means I don't like it, and probably never will... Sorry if this upsets you, but from what I glimpsed, it was not anything I would like the world to be, there is no control, only an illusion of it, no evolution, nothing and everything simultaneously (i sound like a hypocrite considering my nondualism ideas, don't I?), all possibilities the only possibility...

Looking back, it appears I missed one of your previous posts, which would explain why I was still not altogether clear about what your beliefs were with regard to the "physical consciousness" thing. Perhaps I will have to respond to some things you said in it.

I apologize for being so damn redundant, lol.

No worries. I look forward to hearing more if and when you respond.

I'm afraid I'm still of the same belief system as well. I actually quite like your perspectives, and they are not THAT different from my own. However, personal experiences with lucid dreaming, law of attraction, and various psychic phenomena has made the idea of "virtual matter" in consciousness seem far more plausible to me than a set of immutable (and objective) physical laws, but each to their own.

No, if I'm understanding correctly, the two systems are very different, like the difference between finite and infinite. But probably, I'm not understanding you correctly still because I don't see how those phenomena could work in a world of consciousness. Please tell me that is the case.

No limits? I gave myself no limits. Infinity is a stale place to be. If that's really the case, then I technically have no choice in what I'm doing right now, so I'll accept it and just 'move' on. But, and from what I have experienced, at least this of this world, maybe the only world, then I would choose one where there are limits, grand as they may be, and there are rules, as peculiar as they may be, one where there can be change.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

I'm trying, I'm trying, I really am... My thoughts/talking to myself: I think I'm starting to understand the "planes" of consciousnesses. perhaps we're trying to go uphill then? but why have a picture at all if you can exist without it? everything that you can 'look' at is already created by yourself or am i also misunderstanding this information that consciousness essentially operates on as something that is independent of itself, that the information is really part of consciousness as well? I suppose that must be the case though, but then, where does the structures come into the picture? perhaps they are just an aspect of the whole of consciousness?

Yes, the channels or pathways of thought or consciousness have always existed and always will. But from the highest level of consciousness they don't exist, because it is EVERYTHING. When everything is taken together, there is non duality, and everything is homogeneous and all opposites cancel each other out. There is nothing but pure being at this level, and yet this void is pregnant with the potentiality of all infinity.

Originally Posted by Melchior

There's something similar to this from the physical model I work from, a collected system of particles and interactions. Yes, the difference is that one has rules and the other has, well, more... But why is the information limited in the first place? perhaps, there's just a part of the thing that makes it limited. it certainly makes a better compliment to nothingness, I think. granted, i'm more partial to calling it all information as opposed to all consciousness, because without that information it would be nothingness. I suppose that's another property as well?

I don't believe in nothingness. The consciousness *IS* the information, from my perspective. All information is consciousness. Thoughts are the "shape" awareness has taken on at any point in time. That shape can be infinitely broad, or infinitely narrow, depending on the thought. For example, particulate matter could be an example of a narrow (or restricted) thought. Where as something intangible like the thoughtform of "freedom" or "space" could be a more broad example of thought.

Originally Posted by Melchior

but is there a difference between zero and null/mu? the all is consciousness essentially describes the many, many world hypothesis where an infinite amount of worlds each with its own set of rules exist simultaneously, with even higher "planes" describing the combination of these worlds and so on. of course, then, there can be no 'highest' consciousness because it goes to infinity. no beginning, no end.

Well I would disagree that there is no "highest". I believe there is a vantage point in consciousness that enfolds ALL potentials of beingness (or infinity), which is like the void/null point I described earlier. The planes of consciousness are like plateaus of choice of experience. At the most broad point (the non dual point) is the stepping off point for ANYTHING one might embrace as a conscious experience.

Of course, the limiting factor in CHOICE is always a factor of how AWARE of other choices you are. Therefore, the more restricted your experience has become, the longer (experientially speaking) it will take for you to expand beyond that experience. Practically speaking, this means if you are experiencing what it is like to be an amoeba, it could take some time before you "evolve" out of that state of consciousness or experience, to a more broad form or expression of consciousness.

There is no beginning to consciousness, but there appears to be a beginning to the moment when one chooses to "leave" the non dual state, and because of that, there will also, inevitably, at some point, appear to be an end to that as well. The great circle of life (or rather, consciousness), as it were.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I'm reminded of the big bounce theory in a way, but that isn't too important because it doesn't need to happen either. the structures exist because they have to then. the all consciousness/information model necessitates the existence of everything, infinitely, of course. Hmm... interesting result: this also means that there's no good reason for qualia to exist for us, except that it has to for something and that something is what is communicating here. in said model, there is also no free will, as everything that can happen does happen. i.e. we're already zombies and always will be.

I'm not following you here. Qualia is inherent to existence from my perspective. I suppose, subjectively speaking, that may or may not be viewed as a "good reason" for it's existence.

More on free will below:

Originally Posted by Melchior

No, if this is what you mean by the all consciousness model, then I don't see any internal inconsistencies in it either, it has all its bases covered, so to speak. It doesn't really make sense to talk about the discoveries of anything, because all that will be discovered anyway. What I write here, may not even get to you, even though somewhere out in the infinite world of information, you will read this. I wonder though, is there really no limit to the information?

There are limits in OUR reality, but not in the "absolute". The limits in our reality are self imposed however. Our attention to limits is what creates and perpetuates them in our experience.

Even though there are an infinite number of parallel worlds, accounting for all eventualities, it does not exactly mean there is no free will. On the contrary, you can go ANYWHERE from where you are, right now.

In the ONE, we are all the same. All divisions are arbitrary.

Your particular consciousness, which perceives itself as separate from the one, with its peculiar development of preferences and inclinations is FREE to explore those any way you desire. And all those other parallel realities are also FREE to explore their infinity any way they desire. It is our egos that have preferences, however, the One is perfectly happy to be infinitely experiencing all realities. But, as I tried to indicate earlier, from that perfectly broad point of awareness, all these parallel realities cancel themselves out in a sense.

Balance is always the end result. Unity cannot exist without balance.

In a sense there is no free will, but only in the sense that you do not really choose your desires, they sorta choose you, in a way. You have the freedom to achieve anything you desire, but what you desire was predestined, based on your original "desire less" choice. I suppose we might even consider that to be a random factor.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I suppose not, but the information will be limited in some regions of it. but that's not the whole picture. the reason why I haven't seen anything out of the 'ordinary' is because there must exist a temporal slice of everything that has this to be the case. There will exist information out there, somewhere where I will either accept that this is a possibility and one where I don't, one where I (but there is no 'I' is there, only information working itself out, consciousness doesn't have any role in the matter anymore either, unless consciousness is simply the communication of this information.) Do you know, you've essentially 'killed' yourself completely. You don't exist, existence exists. you are part of that existence and you can't do anything about it. there is no change, because all that change is already all accounted for. Oh dear god, i need to stop myself... now.

Haha, yeah, I went insane too, at first.... <consults voices in his head>

<goes back to writing>

I guess it all depends on what you define your "self" to be. I identify myself *AS* existence, itself. Consciousness is existence. I think you are overcomplicating this whole thing (which is easy to do btw), but everything is just experience. A huge infinite field of conscious experience.

When in the absolute zone, all experiences cancel each other out. An experience, and its perfect opposite cause transparency to occur, unless you are looking at them as separated. In the absolute, they are not separate. This is equilibrium. All there is at this level is consciousness of consciousness. One can choose to leave this state, or remain. There is no time here. The choice is always made to leave, it is inevitable. And because there is no time, it could be viewed as instantaneous the moment you achieve it. The big culmination occurs, and a new relative infinity is born.

When you leave that experience you can have experiences of separation, like we are having right now. All this experience is enfolded in the One. But separation allows you to sift through it, develop preferences (as long as you have consciousness of memory, that is). It "appears" tangible when you are not taking all experience in at once. But it's not, it's just consciousness.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Unfortunately, I'm also partial to theories which allow for free will and non-determinism. I think I have figured it out, this whole consciousness(/information) thing that you've proposed, at least to a degree where it has become consistent. Let me tell you, if you haven't already guessed it from what I wrote above, that it has been one a hell of a mind trip. It also brought along with it a sense of deja vu, if that means anything to you. >.>

Oh believe you me, I'm VERY aware of "mind trips".

And about the deja vu: I'm sorry if you feel like our discussion is going in circles, it is was not my intention, if that is how you feel. For what it's worth, I'm really enjoying this exchange because your probing questions are giving me more motivation to articulate my thoughts more clearly.

Best regards.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Yes, the channels or pathways of thought or consciousness have always existed and always will. But from the highest level of consciousness they don't exist, because it is EVERYTHING. When everything is taken together, there is non duality, and everything is homogeneous and all opposites cancel each other out. There is nothing but pure being at this level, and yet this void is pregnant with the potentiality of all infinity.

I don't believe in nothingness. The consciousness *IS* the information, from my perspective. All information is consciousness. Thoughts are the "shape" awareness has taken on at any point in time. That shape can be infinitely broad, or infinitely narrow, depending on the thought. For example, particulate matter could be an example of a narrow (or restricted) thought. Where as something intangible like the thoughtform of "freedom" or "space" could be a more broad example of thought.

Alright, cool, glad i'm finally getting it,... somewhat.

Well I would disagree that there is no "highest". I believe there is a vantage point in consciousness that enfolds ALL potentials of beingness (or infinity), which is like the void/null point I described earlier. The planes of consciousness are like plateaus of choice of experience. At the most broad point (the non dual point) is the stepping off point for ANYTHING one might embrace as a conscious experience.

Of course, the limiting factor in CHOICE is always a factor of how AWARE of other choices you are. Therefore, the more restricted your experience has become, the longer (experientially speaking) it will take for you to expand beyond that experience. Practically speaking, this means if you are experiencing what it is like to be an amoeba, it could take some time before you "evolve" out of that state of consciousness or experience, to a more broad form or expression of consciousness.

There is no beginning to consciousness, but there appears to be a beginning to the moment when one chooses to "leave" the non dual state, and because of that, there will also, inevitably, at some point, appear to be an end to that as well. The great circle of life (or rather, consciousness), as it were.

You see, the issue I have with having a vantage point over infinity is that, well, mathematically speaking there's always 'more', unless of course you mean to say that the vantage point is that infinity, which then I would agree to said possibility.

Random thought/question: just because there are infinite possibilities, does that necessitate an complete/full set of what actually happens? i.e. every possibility is theoretically explored and 'manifested'?

I'm not following you here. Qualia is inherent to existence from my perspective. I suppose, subjectively speaking, that may or may not be viewed as a "good reason" for it's existence.

I think what I was going off of there was that if all possibilities are explored, then qualia shouldn't matter in the great scheme of things. In fact, nothing and everything shouldn't matter in the great scheme of things because it will all happen at some point or another (or, technically speaking, it will just be). I use that same terminology for the purely physical model of the universe, that everything just is, but the difference there is that this 'being' changes and evolves.

There are limits in OUR reality, but not in the "absolute". The limits in our reality are self imposed however. Our attention to limits is what creates and perpetuates them in our experience.

Even though there are an infinite number of parallel worlds, accounting for all eventualities, it does not exactly mean there is no free will. On the contrary, you can go ANYWHERE from where you are, right now.

In the ONE, we are all the same. All divisions are arbitrary.

Your particular consciousness, which perceives itself as separate from the one, with its peculiar development of preferences and inclinations is FREE to explore those any way you desire. And all those other parallel realities are also FREE to explore their infinity any way they desire. It is our egos that have preferences, however, the One is perfectly happy to be infinitely experiencing all realities. But, as I tried to indicate earlier, from that perfectly broad point of awareness, all these parallel realities cancel themselves out in a sense.

Balance is always the end result. Unity cannot exist without balance.

In a sense there is no free will, but only in the sense that you do not really choose your desires, they sorta choose you, in a way. You have the freedom to achieve anything you desire, but what you desire was predestined, based on your original "desire less" choice. I suppose we might even consider that to be a random factor.

Well, my point was that it wasn't that you could just 'go' anywhere as you choose, it's that you would go all potential possibilities without a 'choice' because all of it happens. I suppose, if the model were 'true' that I can imagine this should necessitate that it is something that is 'true' as well (because I would then be in a world of those rules), and even if I didn't, if the model were 'true' then that would simply be another of those worlds...

I'm not quite sure what you mean in that the parallel realities 'cancel' each other out... how does this happen? and what does it mean for the model?

But yeah, no free will, everything is predestined because everything is already, in a sense, finished, happening 'simultaneously' with each 'atemporal slice', if you understand what I'm reaching for here, coexisting in that instant that could be seen as infinitesimally short, yet encompassing all of eternity because it's all there is.

Haha, yeah, I went insane too, at first.... <consults voices in his head>

<goes back to writing>

I guess it all depends on what you define your "self" to be. I identify myself *AS* existence, itself. Consciousness is existence. I think you are overcomplicating this whole thing (which is easy to do btw), but everything is just experience. A huge infinite field of conscious experience.

When in the absolute zone, all experiences cancel each other out. An experience, and its perfect opposite cause transparency to occur, unless you are looking at them as separated. In the absolute, they are not separate. This is equilibrium. All there is at this level is consciousness of consciousness. One can choose to leave this state, or remain. There is no time here. The choice is always made to leave, it is inevitable. And because there is no time, it could be viewed as instantaneous the moment you achieve it. The big culmination occurs, and a new relative infinity is born.

When you leave that experience you can have experiences of separation, like we are having right now. All this experience is enfolded in the One. But separation allows you to sift through it, develop preferences (as long as you have consciousness of memory, that is). It "appears" tangible when you are not taking all experience in at once. But it's not, it's just consciousness.

Ok, alright, there's no escape is there? except by 'lateral' thinking, so to speak... I get it, i think, i hope. Nonetheless, I will still operate under my current mode of thought (i.e. the physical description of the universe, that the information comes from something that is more or less 'concrete' in terms of energy signatures and whatnot as opposed to pure information that mimics it perfectly (who's the zombie now? )) because: 1) given what I already know, and nothing thus far has seemed to relay to me otherwise (not even this divergence into a plausible alternate explanation), it would be far more useful to me living under this model to continue to use this model because for all intents and purposes, it is a model that has worked and will likely continue to work. or 2) if on the other hand it is true that everything is all information/consciousness, then this is essentially the possibility of myself going through with this route, and I wish the other me who may have chosen differently good luck hopes he does well, even though I know that it will do him no good either way because it is inevitable that he will and won't. Sound's almost like Pascal's Wager, doesn't it.

And about the deja vu: I'm sorry if you feel like our discussion is going in circles, it is was not my intention, if that is how you feel. For what it's worth, I'm really enjoying this exchange because your probing questions are giving me more motivation to articulate my thoughts more clearly.

Sorry about that, I think I was the one unclear here, so you have no need to apologize. When I said something about the deja vu, i was referring to the mind trip. I felt as though I had gone through a similar 'mind trip' in the past, leading to where I am now. I'm the one going around in circles here, not our discussion.

... >.>

although... if you reread my two post reply from a while back, you'll see certain conclusions being repeated here. It's almost as though I had forgotten the argument and simply rehashed it here starting from scratch, again, silly memory... sigh... (that's to myself, not you (you've been an excellent sport ), although it does mean something about my grip on my current modes of thinking to be quite firm...)

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

You see, the issue I have with having a vantage point over infinity is that, well, mathematically speaking there's always 'more', unless of course you mean to say that the vantage point is that infinity, which then I would agree to said possibility.

Yes, that is what I meant by the absolute point, the vantage point is infinity itself.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Random thought/question: just because there are infinite possibilities, does that necessitate an complete/full set of what actually happens? i.e. every possibility is theoretically explored and 'manifested'?

Yes. All possibilities are present and manifested, it is infinitely enormous, beyond human comprehension.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I think what I was going off of there was that if all possibilities are explored, then qualia shouldn't matter in the great scheme of things. In fact, nothing and everything shouldn't matter in the great scheme of things because it will all happen at some point or another (or, technically speaking, it will just be). I use that same terminology for the purely physical model of the universe, that everything just is, but the difference there is that this 'being' changes and evolves.

In my consciousness model, being is always evolving as well, or rather, having the experience of evolution, rising to higher and higher plateaus of "knowingness", until your reach the absolute point, and then a new relative infinity is explored, or it seems new anyhow.

When you reach the absolute point or plane, it's as if this reality never existed in the first place, because the absolute is not affected by ANYTHING that happens in these relative realities we designate as "reality". They are merely vagaries of the stream.

The way the stream flows has no affect on the reality that water is still water, similar to how consciousness remains consciousness no matter what shape it assumes.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Well, my point was that it wasn't that you could just 'go' anywhere as you choose, it's that you would go all potential possibilities without a 'choice' because all of it happens. I suppose, if the model were 'true' that I can imagine this should necessitate that it is something that is 'true' as well (because I would then be in a world of those rules), and even if I didn't, if the model were 'true' then that would simply be another of those worlds...

This is true, all probabilities ARE explored. But then, is that such a bad thing?

It's easy to look at it from our very human vantage point, and be disturbed by the idea of it, but as I understand it, from higher levels, all paradoxes are resolved.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I'm not quite sure what you mean in that the parallel realities 'cancel' each other out... how does this happen? and what does it mean for the model?

All forms can only be distinguished through the contrast of their opposite. If we could take all colors and think of them as mathematical values, we could see how any given color is canceled when it is combined with its perfect contrasting opposite color. All colors together are white, but add an equal value of black, and the white is canceled out too.

Or we could think of it terms of sound waves. There is constructive and deconstructive interference. A sound wave, and it's perfect opposite, produce the experience of silence. In fact, come to think of it, don't pilots utilize noise canceling head phones that actually perform this very function?

So if you take any experience, and its perfectly opposite probability and combine those realities into a single undivided conscious state, they cancel each other out. It's like (-1) + (1) = 0. And the only thing that doesn't have an opposite is consciousness (which is existence). So that's all that is left at the absolute point. There is no opposite to existence, but the illusion of duality is birthed when the absolute chooses to perceive an opposite to existence. Again, there is no opposite to existence, but it imagines there is. It's like a dream (or the big bang). And this imaginary "lack" thought form is reflected at all levels of reality. It's like the chain reaction for all illusory separated realities...until they figure out they don't exist apart from each other.

Originally Posted by Melchior

But yeah, no free will, everything is predestined because everything is already, in a sense, finished, happening 'simultaneously' with each 'atemporal slice', if you understand what I'm reaching for here, coexisting in that instant that could be seen as infinitesimally short, yet encompassing all of eternity because it's all there is.

Yes, you are right. You are also wrong. The source (or one/absolute) requires no free will, it is beyond any such human need for such. It is like freedom itself. It is comprised of ALL choices, or thoughts.

We, that is to say, our personalities that we identify ourselves to be *DO* have free will, though. Allow me to explain this whole theory in a slightly more intuitive way:

Imagine you are Source or God. You are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

What is the difference between the perfect dream of a given place, and the place in "real" life? If you had unlimited resources of energy, there would be no difference between the perfect simulation of a thing, and the thing itself. The experience would be EXACTLY the same. This is important.

Source doesn't just know everything that IS, Source knows everything that COULD BE. Source even knows what it is like to be Melchior, not knowing he is that very same Source. That knowingness *IS* your existence. Now, ALL "knowingnesses" are enfolded within Source's MASSIVE and infinite consciousness. It is a seamless field of infinite experience. I like to call it "intelligent infinity".

But to explain where free will comes into this, the portion of Source's knowingness you CURRENTLY perceive yourself to be is NOT "you", not the REAL you, anyhow. You are consciousness -- you are Source. What you perceive yourself to be is but a portion you have identified with. You don't have to keep identifying with that portion, you can identify with any aspect of its knowingness because you are, in reality, the whole enchilada. This is how the illusion of spiritual evolution occurs.

Your ego is just cycling through these various experiences, incarnating into different aspects of the cosmic mind. Right now, you are having the experience of being "Melchior". Your spiritual ego (the experience of individuality) is moving from knowingness to knowingness as it follows the stream of consciousness where it will, leading to broader and broader levels of knowingness, until one day, when we let go of our ego altogether, and return back to Source fully.

And then we will do it all over again...

Originally Posted by Melchior

2) if on the other hand it is true that everything is all information/consciousness, then this is essentially the possibility of myself going through with this route, and I wish the other me who may have chosen differently good luck hopes he does well, even though I know that it will do him no good either way because it is inevitable that he will and won't.

First of all, that alternate you is by all rights and reasonable purposes, a completely different person than you. He's like a cousin -- he shares certain similarities to you, some genetic, some social, some mental, some spiritual. But then, all beings in existence share at least SOME similarities with you. And of course, ultimately, we are ALL the same being. What you do to others really is done to your higher sense of "self".

Second of all, that other person is just an experience that Source has enfolded within it. YOU, the Melchior ego individual personality, doesn't have to experience any reality you don't want to. You get to choose what part of Source's infinite thoughtform you identify with. That is, until you voluntarily give up individuality altogether, and become identified with the continuum of existence itself (Source/Absolute).

Existence is a giant pretzel.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Yes. All possibilities are present and manifested, it is infinitely enormous, beyond human comprehension.

So if I said that I have comprehended it, you'd know I was lying or only thought that I had comprehended it? (and subsequently disagreed with it? )

This is true, all probabilities ARE explored. But then, is that such a bad thing?

It's easy to look at it from our very human vantage point, and be disturbed by the idea of it, but as I understand it, from higher levels, all paradoxes are resolved.

I know that they are resolved, because nature doesn't realize paradoxes, it is what it is. I'll tell you why it is a 'bad' thing though (although, technically, that's just how it is, nothing good or bad about it...). It means that the world is deterministic, and whether you like it or not, this actually limits choice, through the exploration of all choice. By choosing everything, you don't choose at all. If anything, I'm beginning to understand the utility of having limits, flexible or not, because without limits, there would be no resistance, no reason for motivation, no change, everything yet nothing at all. So maybe it is just a game, a futile game that the unified consciousness executes in whatever existence it has, after all, that would be its nature, it's something that is inevitable. For humans, the idea of having infinite possibility, while on the surface is very appealing, once attained will only leave us, whatever 'us' is at that point, with nothing to do. Ever heard of the quote: "the journey is the reward"? I don't think it applies here, because all paths are taken, and the journey doesn't exist. there is only existence, in all its glory, doing nothing in particular. ...well, it might be having some fun.

All forms can only be distinguished through the contrast of their opposite. If we could take all colors and think of them as mathematical values, we could see how any given color is canceled when it is combined with its perfect contrasting opposite color. All colors together are white, but add an equal value of black, and the white is canceled out too.

Or we could think of it terms of sound waves. There is constructive and deconstructive interference. A sound wave, and it's perfect opposite, produce the experience of silence. In fact, come to think of it, don't pilots utilize noise canceling head phones that actually perform this very function?

So if you take any experience, and its perfectly opposite probability and combine those realities into a single undivided conscious state, they cancel each other out. It's like (-1) + (1) = 0. And the only thing that doesn't have an opposite is consciousness (which is existence). So that's all that is left at the absolute point. There is no opposite to existence, but the illusion of duality is birthed when the absolute chooses to perceive an opposite to existence. Again, there is no opposite to existence, but it imagines there is. It's like a dream (or the big bang). And this imaginary "lack" thought form is reflected at all levels of reality. It's like the chain reaction for all illusory separated realities...until they figure out they don't exist apart from each other.

I think you mean amplitudes, not probabilities there. probability is the amplitude squared, which runs from 0 (not happening) to 1 (for sure happening). Negative probability has no meaning to it.

Yes, you are right. You are also wrong. The source (or one/absolute) requires no free will, it is beyond any such human need for such. It is like freedom itself. It is comprised of ALL choices, or thoughts.

We, that is to say, our personalities that we identify ourselves to be *DO* have free will, though. Allow me to explain this whole theory in a slightly more intuitive way:

Imagine you are Source or God. You are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

What is the difference between the perfect dream of a given place, and the place in "real" life? If you had unlimited resources of energy, there would be no difference between the perfect simulation of a thing, and the thing itself. The experience would be EXACTLY the same. This is important.

Source doesn't just know everything that IS, Source knows everything that COULD BE. Source even knows what it is like to be Melchior, not knowing he is that very same Source. That knowingness *IS* your existence. Now, ALL "knowingnesses" are enfolded within Source's MASSIVE and infinite consciousness. It is a seamless field of infinite experience. I like to call it "intelligent infinity".

But to explain where free will comes into this, the portion of Source's knowingness you CURRENTLY perceive yourself to be is NOT "you", not the REAL you, anyhow. You are consciousness -- you are Source. What you perceive yourself to be is but a portion you have identified with. You don't have to keep identifying with that portion, you can identify with any aspect of its knowingness because you are, in reality, the whole enchilada. This is how the illusion of spiritual evolution occurs.

Your ego is just cycling through these various experiences, incarnating into different aspects of the cosmic mind. Right now, you are having the experience of being "Melchior". Your spiritual ego (the experience of individuality) is moving from knowingness to knowingness as it follows the stream of consciousness where it will, leading to broader and broader levels of knowingness, until one day, when we let go of our ego altogether, and return back to Source fully.

And then we will do it all over again...

Read above... oh cycles... maybe that's why it feels like I've lived this/my life before... >.>

First of all, that alternate you is by all rights and reasonable purposes, a completely different person than you. He's like a cousin -- he shares certain similarities to you, some genetic, some social, some mental, some spiritual. But then, all beings in existence share at least SOME similarities with you. And of course, ultimately, we are ALL the same being. What you do to others really is done to your higher sense of "self".

Second of all, that other person is just an experience that Source has enfolded within it. YOU, the Melchior ego individual personality, doesn't have to experience any reality you don't want to. You get to choose what part of Source's infinite thoughtform you identify with. That is, until you voluntarily give up individuality altogether, and become identified with the continuum of existence itself (Source/Absolute).

Existence is a giant pretzel.

I've given up individuality, in a sense, when I understood nondualism. Strict determinism, on the other hand, is something that I can but never will accept because it defeats the purpose of 'growth'. Does this really matter though, which is 'correct'? For the physical model, it matters, for the consciousness model, it doesn't. In my opinion, the best 'choice' then would be the one that matters, even if it turns out to be wrong.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

So if I said that I have comprehended it, you'd know I was lying or only thought that I had comprehended it? (and subsequently disagreed with it? )

Perhaps. But I think it is possible to understand something through symbols which represent concepts that are difficult for us to fully fit within our human consciousness. Sort of like the word "infinity", it's just a symbol for a representation we can't fully imagine, but we can get a vague idea of it, nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Melchior

It means that the world is deterministic, and whether you like it or not, this actually limits choice, through the exploration of all choice. By choosing everything, you don't choose at all. If anything, I'm beginning to understand the utility of having limits, flexible or not, because without limits, there would be no resistance, no reason for motivation, no change, everything yet nothing at all. So maybe it is just a game, a futile game that the unified consciousness executes in whatever existence it has, after all, that would be its nature, it's something that is inevitable. For humans, the idea of having infinite possibility, while on the surface is very appealing, once attained will only leave us, whatever 'us' is at that point, with nothing to do. Ever heard of the quote: "the journey is the reward"? I don't think it applies here, because all paths are taken, and the journey doesn't exist. there is only existence, in all its glory, doing nothing in particular. ...well, it might be having some fun.

But consider your own theory of the universe, with its particular physical limits. Is it any different really? If you presume an infinite stretch of time, will not ALL possibilities eventually be explored?

And if they are not explored, you are stuck in a rut of experience anyway right?

Originally Posted by Melchior

I've given up individuality, in a sense, when I understood nondualism. Strict determinism, on the other hand, is something that I can but never will accept because it defeats the purpose of 'growth'. Does this really matter though, which is 'correct'? For the physical model, it matters, for the consciousness model, it doesn't. In my opinion, the best 'choice' then would be the one that matters, even if it turns out to be wrong.

I still don't see the theory I've presented as deterministic in nature. I still see it as being more free than any other model. Infinity is a big place, it doesn't exactly imply "endedness". All experiences are available. If you can imagine it, it is there (not too mention there are PLENTY we, that is to say human consciousness, can't yet imagine). I don't see that as restrictive in the slightest, actually.

From my perspective, growth matters very much in my model, not for what the growth will achieve, per se, but for the experience of growth itself -- it is a valuable experience to those who choose to experience it. Our consciousness is ascendant in nature, it ENJOYS growing. Learning is fun. That's why we chose growth experiences, because we enjoy the journey.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Melchior

I see, I see. However, I think there's something overlooked here as well. This information that S_2 sees after entering the lab (the uncollapsed wave), isn't on the screen as an interference pattern. because if it is on the screen, then the information that was sent to S_t was of the past and doesn't affect this new set of interfering photons. However, I'm assuming that it is due to the data readouts from the experiment S_1 that S_2 reads when arriving. however when arrived, the which-path information was essentially erased along with S_1. In the case that the data is strictly that from S_1 of the final pattern and the which path data was erased, then I would agree with you that S_2 would see the clumping pattern in the data, because it was that which was recorded and in a sense relaying the which-path data along with it, and so in effect, the knowledge of the which-path data was not completely erased in this scenario which would solve the paradox I'm guessing (i.e. that situation that would have caused the paradox never actually happened so it would be a situation that could not occur). in other words, I'm still sticking with the idea that if the information is not available (i suppose I should also add 'in whatever form it's in' as well), then the observation is interference. Sorry about not catching that earlier, I had thought something strange was going on in this problem... Hopefully it's a valid error and not just something I made up to press my point... sigh... >.<

In that case the which way can never be erased after it is viewed by a person. Photons showing it was collapsed will always be available to some distant observer.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I'll add this bit here too because the ideas and results from this experiment are also somewhat relevant. Looking at the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, there are similarities to the data being incomprehensible unless the which path data is also known. i.e. if the data for which-path was erased post-detection, an interference pattern is seen in the data, albeit here for both ways, detect and non-detect prior to this information is also the same, which seems like some form of interference in of itself... >.>

I don't know. All I see is the same requirement - information must be available to a human. Computers can hold the information and pass it around in a code form, even though they have seen the original data, and it won't change anything. If a person does that, even if you are not aware of it, once you view the screen it will show a collapse. They could collapse it without your permission and refuse to share the information with you. It will still collapse.

I'm not really sure I followed the reasoning on these first 2 things to make a decisive comment though. I tried, I'm just having some mental roadblocks

Originally Posted by Melchior

the transactional interpretation, from what little I read of it also supports the idea that the wavefunction was collapsed the entire time, because some standing wave is created between the sender and receiver through time or something like that, but for some reason, i have my reservations of it, same with the afshar experiment, but that's probably just me feeling uneasy about it. future affecting the present and all...

Also, how would it be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?

Well a non-physical wave should have 0 or less entropy than it's particle, once collapsed it has increased it's disorder. We are not at equilibrium so can we uncollapse a system forward in time?

Originally Posted by Melchior

If the person was able to see the collapse then by all means the data should be there for you to see it as well, after all two people aren't so different, so whatever gave that first person the information could potentially also give you the information. the difference with a computer is that if it won't give you the information, it won't give anyone else the information either. I'm suddenly reminded of the Chinese Room for some reason. Essentially, I think that if the computer was replaced by the computer and a person reading the output, if the latter didn't give you any information and you couldn't get any information you wouldn't otherwise get if you strictly had the computer, things would not change (this includes the person just telling you if there was interference or not for the same reasons I stated with the scientist's scenario above about percolating information).

I'm sure it collapses once a human has seen it or can see it.
If that wasn't true than anyone in the room who couldn't read detector jargon would get an interference pattern. Or we could teach a student the process but he would get an interference pattern even with the info right there if he didn't understand it.
This experiment has been repeated with variations literally 1000's of times.
Students and pros have been trying to defeat this for a long time. All of the crazy results are not published because they all say the same thing in the end. Which is not really news - "Strange observer created quantum effects proven true, yet again...(boring)"
The quantum eraser was the only one weird enough to warrant mention. Most scientist were not surprised though, it's already predicted in the math.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I say that it 'does' in the sense that the detector has the information of the collapse. However, that information will not do anyone else any good because it can't get to anyone else. Furthermore, I think the detector could only interact using this information if it were able to pass this information on to what it wanted to interact with (so that they were on the same page, so to speak ).

Yeah the detector gets a photon blip because the probability is highest in that one spot. The probability gives spacetime enough juice to fire out a photon and that's what gets detected. The wave itself is imaginary (uses i). It a complex wave not a physical wave.

If the detector spits out information and that causes a collapse - even if no scientist has gone near the information - there is a big problem there.
That is what happens. So the idea of a "physical model" of the Universe and consciousness is utterly impossible. Even if one tries to avoid some sort of mind/matter connection this strange process completely undermines what the word "physical" is all about. The causality in this experiment is not allowed for in what we call the physical. OR we keep what we know about the physical to be real but add a 2nd component that says consciousness somehow has it's own set of rules in regards to it's existence in reality. The act of "knowing" can effect matter by some process beyond our physics.

It's like saying every time I think about a ham sandwich, a ham sandwich appears in my refrigerator. In the sense that:

1) It defies what we know of as "physical rules".
2)It seems to be related to consciousness.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

But consider your own theory of the universe, with its particular physical limits. Is it any different really? If you presume an infinite stretch of time, will not ALL possibilities eventually be explored?

And if they are not explored, you are stuck in a rut of experience anyway right?

Not necessarily, because when this universe ends, that's the end, it's permanent, and nothing can or will bring it back, in fact, it would probably be considered against the nature of existence to do so. And the possibilities that this universe 'could' have potentially evolved into disappear along with it. Another universe may 'exist', but that is a different story all on its own, unconnected to this one. What does being stuck in a rut of experience mean even? I sure hope the universe isn't recursive...

I suppose I'm somewhat of a pragmatist/instrumentalist as well, now that I think about it. This means that if and when there comes a time where it becomes 'correct' to throw away what I currently believe and move onto something perhaps a bit more universal, such as your views, then I will do so, or at least hope that I will given the circumstances.

I still don't see the theory I've presented as deterministic in nature. I still see it as being more free than any other model. Infinity is a big place, it doesn't exactly imply "endedness". All experiences are available. If you can imagine it, it is there (not too mention there are PLENTY we, that is to say human consciousness, can't yet imagine). I don't see that as restrictive in the slightest, actually.

From my perspective, growth matters very much in my model, not for what the growth will achieve, per se, but for the experience of growth itself -- it is a valuable experience to those who choose to experience it. Our consciousness is ascendant in nature, it ENJOYS growing. Learning is fun. That's why we chose growth experiences, because we enjoy the journey.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue.

I'm still not convinced that there is anything to grow for though, because essentially, you're already there, but I suppose with mentioning growing for growth itself, this is somewhat resolved though although still not quite in my eyes. Nonetheless, if it works for you, then it works for you, and that's your decision to make, however you perceive things. It's like all those interpretations of quantum mechanics, being used as they are useful dependent on the context, not necessarily contradicting with what actually is observed. For me, however, the physical model has shown itself to be the only 'reasonable' way to go. ...Upon further research, this may be due to my 'first principles' being slightly different than yours, in which case, agreeing to disagree is likely the only satisfactory course of action... for now.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

In that case the which way can never be erased after it is viewed by a person. Photons showing it was collapsed will always be available to some distant observer.

Hooray for theoretical black holes.

I don't know. All I see is the same requirement - information must be available to a human. Computers can hold the information and pass it around in a code form, even though they have seen the original data, and it won't change anything. If a person does that, even if you are not aware of it, once you view the screen it will show a collapse. They could collapse it without your permission and refuse to share the information with you. It will still collapse.

I'm not really sure I followed the reasoning on these first 2 things to make a decisive comment though. I tried, I'm just having some mental roadblocks

Why not a cat or any other form of being that you've attributed this value of consciousness to? Where do you draw the line? For me, there is no line, and even the most fundamental particle can cause collapse, but if that information doesn't make it to 'you', then nothing will come of it.

As for following my reasoning, what part of it is being problematic? I can try to explain it again if you'd like.

Well a non-physical wave should have 0 or less entropy than it's particle, once collapsed it has increased it's disorder. We are not at equilibrium so can we uncollapse a system forward in time?

I see... I see, but if there's no paradox then it's fine, right?

I'm sure it collapses once a human has seen it or can see it.
If that wasn't true than anyone in the room who couldn't read detector jargon would get an interference pattern. Or we could teach a student the process but he would get an interference pattern even with the info right there if he didn't understand it.
This experiment has been repeated with variations literally 1000's of times.
Students and pros have been trying to defeat this for a long time. All of the crazy results are not published because they all say the same thing in the end. Which is not really news - "Strange observer created quantum effects proven true, yet again...(boring)"
The quantum eraser was the only one weird enough to warrant mention. Most scientist were not surprised though, it's already predicted in the math.

I'm fine with that, what/where's the math for this, btw?

Yeah the detector gets a photon blip because the probability is highest in that one spot. The probability gives spacetime enough juice to fire out a photon and that's what gets detected. The wave itself is imaginary (uses i). It a complex wave not a physical wave.

If the detector spits out information and that causes a collapse - even if no scientist has gone near the information - there is a big problem there.
That is what happens. So the idea of a "physical model" of the Universe and consciousness is utterly impossible. Even if one tries to avoid some sort of mind/matter connection this strange process completely undermines what the word "physical" is all about. The causality in this experiment is not allowed for in what we call the physical. OR we keep what we know about the physical to be real but add a 2nd component that says consciousness somehow has it's own set of rules in regards to it's existence in reality. The act of "knowing" can effect matter by some process beyond our physics.

It's like saying every time I think about a ham sandwich, a ham sandwich appears in my refrigerator. In the sense that:

1) It defies what we know of as "physical rules".
2)It seems to be related to consciousness.

Thing is, if the information of the collapse by the detector never reached the scientist, then it is as though it never happened. i.e. if the sun were to pop out of existence, theoretically, the moment you see it/feel the effects is about 8 minutes later then when it happened, 'next to' the sun. It never happened for all those 8 minutes. all 'you' see is the 'past' so to speak. It's a similar line of thinking here. Also, there is no 'undermining' of the term physical, but probably a combining of that term and the term metaphysical. I'm a nondualist, you see.