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. According to the most successful theory of physics – quantum mechanics – nothing really happens in the physical world unless a conscious mind observes it.

    I’m pretty sure that most physicists would disagree with that.

  2. “Particles don’t exist (they are waves) “.
    No: it’s “waves don’t exist (they are particles”) as established by the “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912”

  3. Neil Rickert: I’m pretty sure that most physicists would disagree with that.

    Correct. But it is worth a moment’s reflection to understand why physicists would reject all this “consciousness did it!” deepities.

    David Albert, a very good philosopher of physics, made the following point in his review of a recent book in the history of quantum mechanics:

    —————————————————————————————
    There was a brilliant circle of physicists around Niels Bohr, at his institute in Copenhagen, who had been at the forefront of the mathematical development of quantum mechanics from its beginnings, and who had managed to persuade themselves, by sometime around the mid-1920s, that all of this was going to require, as Bohr put it, some “radical revision of our attitude toward the problem of physical reality.” They were convinced that any attempt at describing what is “actually going on” in the double-slit experiment, or describing what things are “actually like” in the interiors of atoms, must inevitably collapse into paradox. What was happening, they thought, was nothing less than the scientific discovery of the limits of science itself. Physics, as they saw it, could no longer pretend to be in the business of finding out how nature is. As Becker writes, for Bohr “quantum physics tells us nothing whatsoever about the world…because quantum objects don’t exist in the same way as the everyday world around us.” What physics is supposed to do, and all that physics can aspire to do—according to Bohr and his circle—is make predictions about the results of experiments.

    Spelling out the details of this new conception of physics—the so-called Copenhagen interpretation—turns out to be tricky. And the various attempts we have at doing so, from Bohr and his circle, are not always obviously compatible with one another, or even internally consistent in themselves. One of the things that seems clear is that they were thinking of quantum mechanics as a universal theory, which could in principle be applied to any physical system. But that came with a curious catch, which was that any application of the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics to some particular physical system X is apparently going to need to allude to something else, something outside of X, by which X can be measured or observed. And this external observer needs to be described, according to Bohr and his circle, for reasons that were never fully explained, in the more familiar and everyday language of “classical” physics.1

    Any application of quantum mechanics, then, is going to need to start by drawing a line between the system that gets measured (to which one applies the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics) and the system that does the measuring (which needs, again, to be treated as “classical”). And there is no objective fact of the matter, out there in the world, about where that line belongs. Where it gets drawn is going to depend on what you have chosen to treat as the system that gets measured and what you have chosen to treat as the system that does the measuring. You can draw the line between some subatomic object of experimental investigation and some macroscopic piece of experimental apparatus that is being used to investigate it, or you can draw it between that piece of experimental apparatus and the laboratory technician who reads its output and records it in her notebook, or you can draw it between that technician and yourself, to whom she finally submits her report, or you can draw it between your eye and your brain. But the line needs to be drawn someplace, and there need to be things on both sides of it, and so the very idea of a quantum-mechanical treatment of the universe as a whole, or of a quantum-mechanical treatment of the act of observation itself, would amount to a straightforward contradiction in terms.
    —————————————————————————–

    I’ll admit that I didn’t understand the problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation until I read this: quantum mechanics cannot be a comprehensive theory of physics because the Copenhagen Interpretation always requires that the system doing the measuring is defined in classical terms. Also notice that the cut between what is measured and what is measuring is arbitrary. One could put between anywhere, as long as it is somewhere. One could be a complete materialist about mind and make the cut between the eye and the brain, if one wanted to.

    It should also be pointed out that the alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation, such as Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation and Bohmian mechanics, are (to the best of my knowledge) empirically indistinguishable: we don’t yet have a way of testing which version is correct. And of course (it must be pointed out) all of them are incompatible with general relativity, the other great achievement of 20th-century fundamental physics.

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

    You need to read “The Quark and the Jaguar” by Murray Gell-Mann. He is credited with first predicting the existence of quarks, and with naming them.

    He explains very clearly why conscious observers are not needed to achieve decoherence of wave functions.

  5. Kantian Naturalist: … until I read this: quantum mechanics cannot be a comprehensive theory of physics because …

    I would go further than that.

    There cannot be a comprehensive theory of physics. Period.

    A comprehensive theory of physics would require that observations be made from outside the cosmos. But we are stuck inside. The best we can ever do is depend on ad hoc pragmatic means of making observations.

    There cannot be objective observations or objective descriptions, in the strictest sense of “objective”. The best we can ever manage is to get by with intersubjective agreement about what to count as an observation and what to count as a description.

  6. Neil Rickert: A comprehensive theory of physics would require that observations be made from outside the cosmos. But we are stuck inside. The best we can ever do is depend on ad hoc pragmatic means of making observations.

    I was using “comprehensive” in a somewhat different sense: a theory is comprehensive if any measurement taken anywhere in the universe (at any time or place) would count as confirming or disconfirming the theory.

    There cannot be objective observations or objective descriptions, in the strictest sense of “objective”. The best we can ever manage is to get by with intersubjective agreement about what to count as an observation and what to count as a description.

    I would take that as a good reason for discarding “the strictest sense” of objective — the sense in which “objective” means “absolute”. There are still perfectly good senses for “objective” to contrast it with “intersubjective,” while respecting the pragmatist insistence that objective, intersubjective, and subjective are interdependent concepts.

  7. Kantian Naturalist: I was using “comprehensive” in a somewhat different sense: a theory is comprehensive if any measurement taken anywhere in the universe (at any time or place) would count as confirming or disconfirming the theory.

    Not really very different.

    We make measurements in accordance with standards. But we only have local standards. We do not have standards that we could apply to “anywhere in the universe”.

  8. Neil Rickert: We make measurements in accordance with standards. But we only have local standards. We do not have standards that we could apply to “anywhere in the universe”.

    We have only local techniques of using those standards. But that’s different from whether the theory itself specifies whether the measurements must be made locally or could be made universally.

    Evolutionary theory itself entails that the only measurements that could confirm or disconfirm it are measurements made on populations of organisms. So only the parts of the universe that consist of populations of organisms will count, and those are local standards. Likewise for cognitive science and for astrophysics: they can only confirmed or disconfirmed by measurements taken by those parts of the universe that are cognitive systems or stars.

    That’s different from quantum mechanics, general relativity, or (maybe) thermodynamics. In those sciences, the fact that we can only take measurements here on Earth using our weird little gadgets is a contingent fact about us — it’s not an entailment of the theory itself. The theories themselves could be confirmed or disconfirmed by any measurement taken anywhere or anywhen across all of space-time.

    This seems to me to be a distinction worth making, even if there are good reasons why “comprehensive” is not the best word for indicating that distinction.

  9. For those who don’t want to watch the entire video, I recommend watching it at 13 min mark… It’s the incapable evidence of the nature of reality existing due to Cosmic Mind that some can’t help but call God…

  10. Kantian Naturalist: The theories themselves could be confirmed or disconfirmed by any measurement taken anywhere or anywhen across all of space-time.

    It seems to me that theories are never confirmed, and theories are never disconfirmed.

    Theories are adopted. And theories are abandoned.

  11. Neil Rickert: I’m pretty sure that most physicists would disagree with that.

    How can you know what most physicists would or wouldn’t agree with?
    Why don’t you just say that you don’t like that the inescapable evidence for the Cosmic Consciousness or Mind exposes your false, preconceived ideas or beliefs?
    You can’t, right? Because you would have to be truthful with yourself…
    Pity…

  12. J-Mac: How can you know what most physicists would or wouldn’t agree with?

    By listening to what they say and reading what they write. By noticing whether other physicists criticize what they say or agree with them.

  13. Neil Rickert,

    Per Wiki

    In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.”

  14. colewd:
    Neil Rickert,

    Per Wiki

    colewd: Per Wiki
    In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.”

    This argument doesn’t apply to the preconceived, materialistic ideas… lol

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

  15. J-mac, why not just admit that you believe this because it comforts you? It’s certainly neither inescapable nor a consensus view–except of woo-sniffers. It’s a wack interpretation that happens to appeal to you.

    https://youtu.be/dsSCyNpo__I

  16. walto: J-mac, why not just admit that you believe this because it comforts you?

    I am a seeker of truth whether it comforts me or disappoints me…
    Do you think I was comforted or disappointed when I realized that the teaching of the immortal soul was made up?

    BTW: what kind of comfort do you get from believing in nothing?

  17. J-Mac: I am a seeker of truth whether it comforts me or disappoints me…
    Do you think I was comforted or disappointed when I realized that the teaching of the immortal soul was made up?

    In that case I suggest you keep ‘seeking’ and stop pontificating slices of baloney that you happen to have slipped upon in your driveway.

  18. walto: In that case I suggest you keep ‘seeking’ and stop pontificating slices of baloney.

    Oh, I see… you don’t like the implications of what call “baloney”… because it makes you uncomfortable…
    My goal is to seek the truth wherever it may lead and not to try to support preconceived ideas… which is a gaol of scientific research as well… or at least it should be… But is it?

  19. colewd: Per Wiki

    In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.”

    If one were to argue that it is always fallacious to appeal to the fact of agreement, regardless of whether that agreement has rational basis or not, then one would have to say that it is always fallacious to point out that experts on some topic have reached a consensus.

    The consequence of that policy, followed through consistently, would be that it is always unreasonable to trust experts.

  20. J-Mac: For those who don’t want to watch the entire video, I recommend watching it at 13 min mark… It’s the incapable evidence of the nature of reality existing due to Cosmic Mind that some can’t help but call God…

    Incapable evidence, indeed.

  21. Kantian Naturalist: If one were to argue that it is always fallacious to appeal to the fact of agreement, regardless of whether that agreement has rational basis or not, then one would have to say that it is always fallacious to point out that experts on some topic have reached a consensus.

    The consequence of that policy, followed through consistently, would be that it is always unreasonable to trust experts.

    Then there’s Bill’s confusion as to which group of people argumentum ad populem refers.

    Glen Davidson

  22. J-Mac,

    My goal is to seek the truth wherever it may lead and not to try to support preconceived ideas…

    Then you need to seek harder and loosen your grip on your preconceived ideas.

    There is no “consciousness term” in the equations of quantum mechanics, nor even anything describing the collapse of the wavefunction. The idea that consciousness is necessary in order to collapse the wavefunction is pure speculation.

    A great advantage of the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it doesn’t require wavefunctions to collapse.

  23. 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.

  24. keiths: There is no “consciousness term” in the equations of quantum mechanics, nor even anything describing the collapse of the wavefunction. The idea that consciousness is necessary in order to collapse the wavefunction is pure speculation.

    Right.

    In fact, if one thinks about how the Copenhagen Interpretation is supposed to work, it is clear that consciousness cannot do the work that it is called upon to do here.

    The idea of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is indeterminate until the system is measured. The system becomes determinate when measured.

    But notice that it’s crucial that the measurement apparatus is itself defined in terms of classical, non-quantum mechanics. The question of how to draw the line between the quantum and the classical is answered in terms of what is being measured and what is doing the measuring.

    This turns out to be entirely fatal to the idea that consciousness can doing the measurement work, for the very simple reason that no one has any idea at all as to how we could possibly understand consciousness in terms of laws of physics, let alone laws of classical (non-quantum) physics.

    For consciousness to do the work of measurement as specified by the Copenhagen Interpretation, it would have to be the case that we know how to describe consciousness in terms of laws of classical physics. And no one has any idea how to do this, or if it makes any sense at all. (I suspect it does not.)

    And that is why the idea that consciousness somehow causes the collapse of the wave-function is complete bullshit.

  25. 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.

    One would have to believe that God is continually creating the world by choosing which wave-functions to collapse, and then somehow causing them to collapse. He sees all of them, but then chooses which ones to collapse and in what ways.

    But then it would be divine action, not divine awareness, that’s doing the work there.

    And that would be entailed by the Copenhagen Interpretation only if divine action were itself determined by the laws of classical physics.

  26. Kantian Naturalist: One would have to believe that God is continually creating the world by choosing which wave-functions to collapse, and then somehow causing them to collapse. He sees all of them, but then chooses which ones to collapse and in what ways.

    But then it would be divine action, not divine awareness, that’s doing the work there.

    And that would be entailed by the Copenhagen Interpretation only if divine action were itself determined by the laws of classical physics.

    Not bad… Now it all boils down to choosing whether to believe or deny the obvious…
    I don’t have to guess which choice is going to be yours…

  27. Kantian Naturalist: Right.

    In fact, if one thinks about how the Copenhagen Interpretation is supposed to work, it is clear that consciousness cannot do the work that it is called upon to do here.

    The idea of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is indeterminate until the system is measured. The system becomes determinate when measured.

    But notice that it’s crucial that the measurement apparatus is itself defined in terms of classical, non-quantum mechanics. The question of how to draw the line between the quantum and the classical is answered in terms of what is being measured and what is doing the measuring.

    This turns out to be entirely fatal to the idea that consciousness can doing the measurement work, for the very simple reason that no one has any idea at all as to how we could possibly understand consciousness in terms of laws of physics, let alone laws of classical (non-quantum) physics.

    For consciousness to do the work of measurement as specified by the Copenhagen Interpretation, it would have to be the case that we know how to describe consciousness in terms of laws of classical physics. And no one has any idea how to do this, or if it makes any sense at all. (I suspect it does not.)

    And that is why the idea that consciousness somehow causes the collapse of the wave-function is complete bullshit.

    You can collapse the wave function just by keeping it mind where distance doesn’t matter…
    Here is the link to the actual experiment at 4 min mark…not that I’m hoping it will convince of anything…

    https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY

  28. 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.

    That’s a cool argument! Nice.

  29. J-Mac: Oh, I see… you don’t like the implications of what call “baloney”… because it makes you uncomfortable…
    My goal is to seek the truth wherever it may lead and not to try to support preconceived ideas… which is a gaol of scientific research as well… or at least it should be… But is it?

    You have no idea what you’re talking about. Why would this silly view make anybody uncomfortable? It’s pleasing, certainly, but there happens to be no scintilla of evidence for it. It’s just woo. Are you aware that you’re in no position to controvert actual physicists on this matter?

    Why the hell are there so many cranks here??

  30. J-Mac: Not bad… Now it all boils down to choosing whether to believe or deny the obvious…
    I don’t have to guess which choice is going to be yours…

    For every problem, there is a solution which is simple, obvious, and wrong. I don’t have to guess which solution is going to be yours.

  31. walto: Why the hell are there so many cranks here??

    Forget about it, Jake, it’s the Internet.

  32. I recently watched a lot of youtube videos on Quantum stuff. i found it unpersasive and indeed unlikely. I think there is too much incompetence in these things. its too invisible still.
    in fact their confidence in it is like confidence in evolutionism. its poorly placed.
    they seem to put too much trust in the doble slit experiment in drawing great conclusions.
    While a God created universe would always force great need to divide things and never hit gropund STILL i see it as so complicated that peoples figuring it out and thinking they did is too premature.
    i think post Einstein it got crazy and unsupported by actual scientific evidence.
    I don’t see it supporting creationist ideas.
    .

  33. J-Mac: Not bad… Now it all boils down to choosing whether to believe or deny the obvious…
    I don’t have to guess which choice is going to be yours…

    So you believe that cosmic consciousness is determined by the laws of physics?

    I ask because if you don’t believe that, then you really don’t understand how the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is supposed to work.

  34. Robert Byers:
    I recently watched a lot of youtube videos on Quantum stuff. i found it unpersasive and indeed unlikely. I think there is too much incompetence in these things. its too invisible still.
    in fact their confidence in it is like confidence in evolutionism. its poorly placed.
    they seem to put too much trust in the doble slit experiment in drawing great conclusions.
    While a God created universe would always force greatneed to divide things and never hit gropund STILL i see it as so complicated that peoples figuring it out and thinking they did is too premature.
    i think post Einstein it got crazy and unsupported by actual scientific evidence.
    I don’t see it supporting creationist ideas.
    .

    Haha, the crankenstein of my crankemy is my CRANKL,

  35. walto: You have no idea what you’re talking about. Why would this silly view make anybody uncomfortable? It’s pleasing, certainly, but there happens to be no scintilla of evidence for it. It’s just woo. Are you aware that you’re in no position to controvert actual physicists on this matter?

    It’s a painfully familiar pattern.

    Layperson: “X shows that p.”
    Experts on X: “actually, it doesn’t”
    Layperson: “you ivory tower elitists so dogmatic and close-minded!”

  36. Kantian Naturalist: It’s a painfully familiar pattern.

    Layperson: “X shows that p.”
    Experts on X: “actually, it doesn’t”
    Layperson: “you ivory tower elitists so dogmatic and close-minded!”

    But it was on a video. If that isn’t conclusive, what is?

    Argumentum ab BA77

    Glen Davidson

  37. Kantian Naturalist: So you believe that cosmic consciousness is determined by the laws of physics?

    I ask because if you don’t believe that, then you really don’t understand how the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is supposed to work.

    Neither… I believe Cosmic Consciousness determines the laws of physics and the nature of reality possibly via dark energy…
    I also suspect that dark energy will become the main player in the explanation of gravity and the unification of general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics… if that is even possible…

  38. walto: Haha, the crankenstein of my crankemy is my CRANKL,

    You found your discussion partner… finally… 😉

  39. J-Mac: … I believe Cosmic Consciousness determines the laws of physics and the nature of reality possibly via dark energy…

    And also that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows.

  40. J-Mac: Neither… I believe Cosmic Consciousness determines the laws of physics and the nature of reality possibly via dark energy…
    I also suspect that dark energy will become the main player in the explanation of gravity and the unification of general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics… if that is even possible…

    Cosmic consciousness provides order and justice for mere mortals.

    Through cosmic consciousness, dark energy may cure amputees.

    Why not, when any connection with evidence is severed, and prophecy becomes the means of “knowledge”?

    Glen Davidson

  41. J-Mac: Neither… I believe Cosmic Consciousness determines the laws of physics and the nature of reality possibly via dark energy…
    I also suspect that dark energy will become the main player in the explanation of gravity and the unification of general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics… if that is even possible…

    Well, you can believe whatever you want. I don’t really care.

    But it does bother me when people say things like this — what you just said here — and then in the very same breath say that they are “following the evidence wherever it leads” and that anyone who disagrees with their particular brand of nonsense is a close-minded dogmatist.

    To be exceedingly clear: “following the evidence wherever it leads” is precisely what you are not doing. There’s nothing about cosmic consciousness which is entailed by the Copenhagen Interpretation of “collapse of the wave-function.”

    In fact, quite the opposite: the Copenhagen Interpretation of wave-function collapse is logically incompatible with “cosmic consciousness.” This is for the very simple reason that the collapse of the wave function is not about observation in the sense of mere awareness, but it is all about measurement. The whole point of the problem is that when states are superimposed, then the system is not a definitive state until a measurement is taken. But the system that is used to take the measurement must itself be described in non-quantum, classical terms. Bohr and the other architects of the Copenhagen Interpretation were extremely clear on this point.

    And if the system that is being used to take the measurement must be described in terms of classical mechanics (as the Copenhagen Interpretation requires), then that system cannot be anything at all like a ‘cosmic consciousness’ that creates the laws of classical mechanics.

    Like I said, if you want to go on believing that there’s cosmic consciousness, whatever. It’s crazy, but I’ve heard crazier. But it’s just intellectually dishonest for to say that your view is grounded in science, and anyone who understands the science can tell that it isn’t.

  42. walto,

    In that case I suggest you keep ‘seeking’ and stop pontificating slices of baloney that you happen to have slipped upon in your driveway.

    What evidence do you have other then circular reasoning that the presentation contains “slices of baloney”.

    Do you understand the implications of the double slit experiment or do you just rely on “experts” for your interpretation?

  43. Kantian Naturalist,

    To be exceedingly clear: “following the evidence wherever it leads” is precisely what you are not doing. There’s nothing about cosmic consciousness which is entailed by the Copenhagen Interpretation of “collapse of the wave-function.”

    The Copenhagen interpretation is 90 years old. Several experiments in the video are less then 10 years old.

  44. colewd: The Copenhagen interpretation is 90 years old. Several experiments in the video are less then 10 years old.

    That’s true. But the jury is still out as to whether the violations of Bell’s inequality or the violations of Leggett’s inequality are incompatible with all versions of realism or just certain versions of it.

    I noted that the producers of that video only mention the many worlds interpretation as the alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation, and do not mention Bohmian mechanics. I’m not saying that Bohmian mechanics has been experimentally confirmed — it hasn’t — but that it would be one way of making sense of all the experimental data without theism or solipsism. That’s why it’s a mistake to say that theism is entailed by the experimental data.

    One of the problems made by the video is that it exploits an ambiguity in the concept of “observation.” When physicists talk about observations, they are talking about measurements, which are made with physical devices. It’s not that the mere fact of awareness is bringing forth determinate properties, but that the physical act of taking a measurement constrains what features of the system will be empirically detectable.

    That aside, I think that there are philosophical arguments against certain kinds of realism that are quite decisive. And no one who thinks through the implications of neuroscience can believe that minds are passive recorders of fully determinate reality.

  45. Kantian Naturalist: Evolutionary theory itself entails that the only measurements that could confirm or disconfirm it are measurements made on populations of organisms.

    Spread the gospel.

Leave a Reply