Is Cosmic Consciousness responsible for reality?

According to the most successful theory of physics – quantum mechanics – nothing really happens in the physical world unless a conscious mind observes it.
A reality independent of observation doesn’t exist.

Particles don’t exist (they are waves) unless someone conscious looks at them or takes a measurement of them.

If Cosmic Consciousness is responsible for the nature of reality then all the materialistic theories, like the origins of life, mindless evolution etc. should be scrapped, shouldn’t they? Unless materialistic, unfounded belief system supersedes scientific facts…

150 thoughts on “Is Cosmic Consciousness responsible for reality?

  1. William J. Murray,

    If KN is trusting what he thinks the consensus view is in lieu of spending the mental energy to think it out for himself or engage in a discussion about it, then what’s the point of having a discussion? Just to say, “Ha, experts say you’re wrong, I’m right, so there!” ?

    A recent understanding of the most current experimental results that the video points to would be a good start.

  2. William J. Murray: Yes they do, but there are quite a few examples of people called “crackpots” by the mainstream consensus at the time whose views later became the consensus.

    Who cares about the consensus? Not you!

  3. colewd:
    walto,

    What do you consider a rational interpretation?

    One that a fluent speaker of English with no obvious axe to grind might be expected to come up with.

  4. William J. Murray: so the blanket assertion that consciousness “is not required” for the collapse of the wave function

    Ah, another craven attempt to burden-shift!

    You and mac and a couple other know-it-alls here confidently assert that consciousness is necessary and sufficient for the collapse of the wave-function. KN and others point out that not only is there no consensus regarding that claim in science or philosophy, but, in fact, most physicists and philosophers of science doubt it and argue that there’s no good reason to believe it.

    Then you “respond” with the non sequitur burden shift that it is wrong to make “the blanket assertion that consciousness is not required” by the collapse. Yeah, well who the hell made that claim? Our assertion is simple, so listen a bit more closely. It’s merely that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. And the evidence for that is plentiful–right here in hundreds of your posts.

    Anyhow, I can’t listen to this bullshit anymore. I’ve got to take a break from crankville for a few days.

  5. walto: Sure ok,. Really any rational interpretatIon of it is fine with me.

    So let’s hear it!

    First, I want to say that’s a really awesome question! Thanks for asking it. IMO, the answer is no. If (assuming consciousness causing collapse) all that was required was the unfocused, entangled or nearby presence of consciousness to collapse every quantum potential, the experimental evidence would be far different and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. There would be no reason to even come up with the idea of quantum potential and wave-collapse because all local waves would be collapsed before measuring even took place. This would also be the case, IMO, if mere interaction with large, classical systems (absent consciousness, proximate or distal) was enough to collapse the wave function. After all, isn’t a large, classical system producing the electron or photon for the experiment in the first place? Aren’t stars and devices in labs producing the photons we’re talking about?

    So, it appears that it is precisely the distal cause of intending a measurement that collapses the wave function, and not even the distal cause of intending to produce a photon or electron that collapses them. It appears to be something specific about measurement that collapses the wave function, even though the photon is produce by/already entangled with a classical system (the device that generates it) that was itself produce by (presumably) a proximate consciousness cause.

    Now, one can say that “measurement” is an abstract concept that is being used in relationship to the abstract concept of “quantum collapse”, but we are still left with the experimental results and the various interpretive, rational extrapolations of those results.

    Why didn’t the results of the experiments just reveal determined, specific quantum states and locations? Why all this weird behavior that seemingly contradicts local realism and cause-and-effect that seemingly depends on observation?

    Personally, I prefer the “many worlds” interpretation, but I don’t think that J-Mac’s perspective deserves a dismissal by authoritative fiat. The only reason, IMO, to dismiss the idea that consciousness itself is actually at least the distal cause of what we call quantum collapse is some sort of bias against that conclusion.

  6. walto: Ah, another craven attempt to burden-shift!

    Yeah, well who the hell made that claim?

    KN: May 3, 2018 at 12:13 am, this thread:

    To say it one more time: the collapse of a wave function only requires that a measurement be taken. It doesn’t require consciousness or mind or anything like that. If the measurements were taken by robots that had no thought, awareness, or intentionality, the wave function would still collapse.

    Walto:

    You and mac and a couple other know-it-alls here confidently assert that consciousness is necessary and sufficient for the collapse of the wave-function.

    No, this is what I actually said in response to KN:

    You’re a pretty smart fella, KN. Surely you can recognize the problem with the above statements, both functionally and philosophically? Surely you realize that “measurement” cannot exist, functionally, semantically or philosophically, without the involvement of consciousness?

    Note that I did not make a claim that consciousness was necessary or sufficient to cause collapse; I wasn’t even talking about collapse. I was talking about measurement – that measurement, logically, necessarily implicated the involvement of a consciousness at some point.

    KN continued to argue his case:

    Of course it can. There only needs to be a machine that quantifies over a range of intensive or extensive magnitudes. The fact that the machine itself needs to be built by some intelligent being (so far as we know) doesn’t change the underlying fact that if the measurement of the particle’s position were being taken by a machine, then under the Copenhagen Interpretation, it would be the machine that’s causing the wave-function to collapse.

    So, you see, it was KN’s original claim that we were discussing, not mine.

    KN and others point out that not only is there no consensus regarding that claim in science or philosophy, but, in fact, most physicists and philosophers of science doubt it and argue that there’s no good reason to believe it.

    No, KN actually asserted that consciousness was not required, and then defended that position. My argument was about pointing out the logical flaw that ignored consciousness as a distal cause that is apparently necessary for the act of measurement, even through robots.

    Then you “respond” with the non sequitur burden shift that it is wrong to make “the blanket assertion that consciousness is not required” by the collapse. Yeah, well who the hell made that claim?

    Not a “non-sequitur” at all, as the above evidence demonstrates.

    Our assertion is simple, so listen a bit more closely. It’s merely that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. And the evidence for that is plentiful–right here in hundreds of your posts.

    Anyhow, I can’t listen to this bullshit anymore. I’ve got to take a break from crankville for a few days.

    Holy crap, Walto! What’s with all the hostility? I thought we were having a pleasant, civil discussion?

  7. William J. Murray: KN: May 3, 2018 at 12:13 am, this thread:

    Walto:

    No, this is what I actually said in response to KN:

    Note that I did not make a claim that consciousness was necessary or sufficient to cause collapse; I wasn’t even talking about collapse. I was talking about measurement – that measurement, logically, necessarily implicated the involvement of a consciousness at some point.

    KN continued to argue his case:

    So, you see, it was KN’s original claim that we were discussing, not mine.

    No, KN actually asserted that consciousness was not required, and then defended that position. My argument was about pointing out the logical flaw that ignored consciousness as a distal cause that is apparently necessary for the act of measurement, even through robots.

    Not a “non-sequitur” at all, as the above evidence demonstrates.

    Holy crap, Walto! What’s with all the hostility? I thought we were having a pleasant, civil discussion?

    Sorry for the hostility. My point is this. You say the collapse requires consciousness. KN (who after this I’ll let make his own case), says all we know is that it requires measurement and that measurement is not known to require consciousness–since, after all, it could be done by something not conscious. Then you say, well, something must have planned the measurement, and you’d like to argue about that. I ask, was the planning sufficient? And now you say yes–so long as it was a certain KIND of planning. I think that your position on that is kind of funny, but that’s neither here nor there.

    The thing is, there’s no basis for the claim that consciousness is needed for the collapse in the first place. Maybe it’s the measurement–and no consciousness is necessary. Or maybe the many worlds theory is right. Or maybe Bohm’s theory is right. You have no idea and I have no idea. We’ll find out when/if actual physicists who understand this stuff find out—and not before.

    That’s why we could both shut the hell up here with no loss to intelligent discussion in the universe. I don’t think you’re quite aware of that fact, however. That accounts for my bellicosity. And if the mods would like to guano my last post, I wouldn’t care. I realize full well that you and your buddies have a psychological need for your theories to be true, and I also remember quite well your claims that you don’t care much about what’s true anyhow, only what you like to believe.

    So what the hell is the point of continuing this blather? So you and mac and Byers and and CharilieM and Mueller and Colewd and whoever else have more opportunities to make fallacious arguments to a bunch of people who are half listening?

    Anyhow. Best wishes for a happy tomorrow.

    Waltlococcus

  8. walto: I also remember quite well your claims that you don’t care much about what’s true anyhow, only what you like to believe

    Yeah, that’s WJM’s last resort to stick to his crap. To his credit, that seems to suggest that he’s capable of understanding his arguments have been destroyed and he’s wrong, but he doesn’t care so…

    J-Mac is the real truth seeker here anyway. *giggles*

  9. I assume that everyone here is well informed about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and its implications. I also hope that the majority here had a chance to view the video or read the paper about Dr. Dean Radin’s double-slit experiment which involved streaming live data to a distant Ubuntu Linux server programmed to simulate a human as well as thousands of humans all over the world involved in the experiment…

  10. J-Mac,
    https://youtu.be/hB_2Qd5xNvE

    This is very interesting. He is clearly isolating measurement from observation in the double slit experiment.

    Whats more interesting is the scientific communities resistance to his work. I am seeing a trend here:-)

    Fascinating OP J-Mac.

  11. colewd:
    J-Mac,
    https://youtu.be/hB_2Qd5xNvE

    This is very interesting.He is clearly isolating measurement from observation in the double slit experiment.

    Whats more interesting is the scientific communities resistance to his work.I am seeing a trend here:-)

    Fascinating OP J-Mac.

    I think it’s wise to try to get all your physics information from a parapsychology researcher at a place called the Noetic Institute. Sounds like a perfect plan for educating oneself. I mean, if he doesn’t know, who would?!?

  12. walto,

    I think it’s wise to try to get all your physics information from a parapsychology researcher at a place called the Noetic Institute. Sounds like a perfect plan for educating oneself. I mean, if he doesn’t know, who would?!?

    You are claiming this is where I get all my physics information?

    So your claim is that his experiment is bad because of the name of the place he works?

    Did you look at the experiments he did?

    From Wiki

    Radin’s paranormal claims have been roundly rejected by those in the skeptical and mainstream scientific communities, some of whom have suggested that he has embraced pseudoscience and that he misunderstands the nature of science.[11]:158[12][13] The physicist Robert L. Park has written “No proof of psychic phenomena is ever found. In spite of all the tests devised by parapsychologists like Jahn and Radin, and huge amounts of data collected over a period of many years, the results are no more convincing today than when they began their experiments.”[13]

    From wiki these objections, like yours, lack both an argument and support. The same thing that Rum is accusing non linear of.

    I smell indoctrination here:-)

  13. Sorry, I forgot that your take on the acceptability of his results is more dependable than that of those trained in the discipline. Why wouldn’t it be?

    Forgive me for losing sight of that.

  14. colewd:
    J-Mac,
    https://youtu.be/hB_2Qd5xNvE

    This is very interesting.He is clearly isolating measurement from observation in the double slit experiment.

    Whats more interesting is the scientific communities resistance to his work.I am seeing a trend here:-)

    Fascinating OP J-Mac.

    Hey colewd,

    I have created a follow up OP which includes one of Dean Radin’s videos on the same experiment plus one more on the delayed choice quantum eraser …
    Don’t expect the ‘boys” to like it, so they will attack you, me, the credentials of the scientists who performed the experiments and so on…They simply do not want to hear anything that contradicts their beliefs…
    They love “truth”, as they see it…They hate the truth though…

  15. walto: I think it’s wise to try to get all your physics information from a parapsychology researcher at a place called the Noetic Institute. Sounds like a perfect plan for educating oneself. I mean, if he doesn’t know, who would?!?

    Do you know of any reason, other than pride, that would motivate someone to lie to himself? Please enlighten me, if you can…

  16. I prefer to psychoanalyse those i’ve interacted with. You, e.g. — but it’s not a free service.

    And why are being right or lying to himself the only choices? How about just not knowing what the hell he’s talking about. That seems available. And there’s also knowingly lying to others. That’s a good choice if one wants to take advantage of the ignorance of others. Maybe make a few bucks and get a post at a Noetic institute.

    Lots of possibilities that I take to come before him being right and all the physicists being wrong.

  17. walto:
    I prefer to psychoanalyst those i’ve interacted with.You, e.g. — but it’s not a free service.

    O’RLY!? I guess I have to do you a favour then… I hate wasting time on morons even though I believe time is an illusion… Get that?

  18. J-Mac: O’RLY!? I guess I have to do you a favour then…I hate wasting time onmorons even though I believe time is an illusion… Get that?

    No. It’s contradictory. Like 90% of your posts. But you’re most welcome to ‘do me a favour.’

  19. J-Mac: Which religion? Yours or mine?

    I don’t currently have one.

    But, back when I did have a religion, I practiced self-deception — convincing myself that it (the religion) wasn’t obvious nonsense.

  20. Neil Rickert: I don’t currently have one.

    But, back when I did have a religion, I practiced self-deception — convincing myself that it (the religion) wasn’t obvious nonsense.

    Well, is it fair to state you don’t believe in anything?

  21. J-Mac,

    They simply do not want to hear anything that contradicts their beliefs…
    They love “truth”, as they see it…They hate the truth though…

    Sounds a lot like you. I presented an argument showing that by your own logic, an all-seeing God does not exist:

    Amusingly, the idea that conscious observation collapses the wavefunction is actually evidence against an all-seeing “Cosmic Mind”. If God sees all, then every wavefunction should collapse instantaneously, and it should be impossible to maintain a state of superposition.

    We can create and maintain states of superposition in the lab. Therefore, according to the foot-shooting logic of J-Mac, an all-seeing God does not exist.

    Given your self-proclaimed open-mindedness, have you given up your belief in such a God?

  22. keiths: Amusingly, the idea that conscious observation collapses the wavefunction is actually evidence against an all-seeing “Cosmic Mind”. If God sees all, then every wavefunction should collapse instantaneously, and it should be impossible to maintain a state of superposition.

    We can create and maintain states of superposition in the lab. Therefore, according to the foot-shooting logic of J-Mac, an all-seeing God does not exist.

    I do like that. Have you heard any responses to it, to date?

  23. J-Mac: Openmondenss? Who are you kidding? Your own narcissistic mind?

    Fwiw, I don’t mean that kind of response. I mean something both rational and in english.

  24. walto: I do like that. Have you heard any responses to it, to date?

    The answer in the original video was that God observes us while we, in turn, observe the universe. God’s a bit of a voyageur

  25. dazz: The answer in the original video was that God observes us while we, in turn,observe the universe. God’s a bit of a voyageur

    Why don’t you say the truth why you are here? You like the caco-ass and you are not willing to change not matter what the evidence…

  26. dazz:

    The answer in the original video was that God observes us while we, in turn, observe the universe.

    Really? They claimed that God observes us but not the universe itself?

    Do you have a rough timestamp? I don’t want to wade through the entire video to find that bit.

  27. J-Mac,

    Let’s hear your counterargument, if you have one.

    Why don’t all wavefunctions collapse instantaneously, if God is all-seeing?

  28. walto,

    Sorry, I forgot that your take on the acceptability of his results is more dependable than that of those trained in the discipline. Why wouldn’t it be?

    Forgive me for losing sight of that.

    What discipline? On what basis have you made a judgement here?

    He did an experiment. The experiment showed that he could collapse the waveform without a measurement tool and only a conscious agent. This contradicts KN’s claim.

    Do you have any comment on the experiment?

  29. colewd: Do you have any comment on the experiment?

    Why should my uninformed view of a physics experiment count any more than your uniformed view of that physics experiment? I don’t try to fix my microwave, and I don’t hire you to fix it. I turn to experts in the field. The experts in this field say your buddy is a crackpot, and I don’t substitute my judgment in areas where I, like you, have very little idea what I’m talking about.

    This is very simple, Bill. You are entirely unequipped to take a thoughtful position on the proper interpretation of quantum phenomena. Your views on the matter are utterly irrelevant. Mine too. We can take positions on any damned subject we want, of course: nobody can say we can’t! But they aren’t worth a plug nickel.

    Got it now? Your guy is a doofus. Not because I say he is, though. My views aren’t worth any more than yours on this subject. I’ve had no formal training in physics.

    On issues I know something about, I’m happy to express my opinions (like when I say some argument you may enjoy is actually fallacious). But I don’t opine on the methodology or results of experiments regarding quantum phenomena. I trust the guys who’ve provided the theoretical basis for the engineers who’ve given me my microwave–not some believer in Noetic rays.

  30. keiths:
    dazz:

    Really?They claimed that God observes us but not the universe itself?

    Do you have a rough timestamp?I don’t want to wade through the entire video to find that bit.

    https://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM?t=964

    It’s more like “God observes the reality we create by observing”, or some retarded stuff like that

  31. J-Mac: Why don’t you say the truth why you are here? You like the caco-ass and you are not willing to change not matter what the evidence…

    Your “arguments” collapse as soon as one looks at them tho. Quacktum J-Tardics in effect

  32. dazz: Your “arguments” collapse as soon as one looks at them tho. Quacktum J-Tardics in effect

    Fwiw, I knew Quacktum’s dad. Bought some kind of skin cream from him once. Worked really great for awhile.

  33. walto: Fwiw, I knew Quacktum’s dad. Bought some kind of skin cream from him once. Worked really great for awhile.

    😀

  34. walto,

    Got it now? Your guy is a doofus. Not because I say he is, though. My views aren’t worth any more than yours on this subject. I’ve had no formal training in physics.

    This is the position I expected you to take. This is your view and I have to respect it however I think reasonable people with a reasonable education are capable of looking at data and integrating that into their view on a subject.

    I think you have no idea who is right here and no motivation to understand it better so thats fine.

  35. walto,

    Your guy is a doofus.

    You say you have no ability to judge his work yet you make this comment. This is inconsistent.

  36. colewd:
    walto,

    You say you have no ability to judge his work yet you make this comment.This is inconsistent.

    He is not worth spending the time on not only because of his inconsistencies. It’s his ignorance…

  37. colewd: You say you have no ability to judge his work yet you make this comment. This is inconsistent.

    I provided my basis for this assessment–and it was not my own judgment. I based it on the assessment of experts. So there is no inconsistency. (This–determining positions of self-contradiction–is something I’m actually good at. Like noticing craven attempts burden shifts. Good at that too.) Again, I make no claims to expertise in physics.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.