The place of the psyche in QM

Cosmic bruises. Evidence, not proof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My apologies. It was only necessary to point out we've been in a somewhat similar situation before. Who knows, the universes of a "multiverse" might be re-classified to "subverses" or somesuch ludicrousness if solid evidence accumulated for them. With the "multiverse" collection then being renamed as universe, the new standard for it (an "everything" definition becoming consistent with itself again).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem opposed to evidence for some reason. You still have to account for the bruising in whatever theory you come up with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think it is proof. I will admit it is an evidence. I am against multiverse theory for many reasons. I am pro-single-universe.

I share the same idea's as smolin.

 

What reasons?

 

Wiki, on Lee Smolin

''Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a "final theory":

"I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands."[11]

In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views (the sentences in italics are quotations):

There is only one universe. There are no others, nor is there anything isomorphic to it. Smolin denies the existence of a "timeless" multiverse. Neither other universes nor copies of our universe — within or outside — exist.[clarification needed] No copies can exist within the universe, because no subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. This principle also rules out the notion of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the history of the entire universe, a notion more metaphysical than scientific.
All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly.
Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next or future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this process causing or implying future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an aspect of causal relations. A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, without causing or implying some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next moment. Things that persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom at the next moment.
Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed regularities, when time and particularity are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical platonism, and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".

Smolin is non-religious, believing that "there never was a God, no pilot who made the world by imposing order on chaos and who remains outside, watching and proscribing." [12] He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims "cannot help us to do science." [13]''

 

You base your thinking on philosophy? That's not really a respectable approach to science. You need real facts, not just a thought. This guy is just talking like Jonathan Ross in a chat show. You can't call that 'A Reason'

 

There are no real facts to multiple universes either. In fact, any speculation brought forth from multiverses so far only suits a philosophical understanding of the wave function. There is arguably an evidence, which could have been caused by a number of things no doubt. Since we cannot infer exactly what happened at the beginning of time, then cosmic bruises could be an artefact of something we have not fathomed.

 

I posted about flat areas created by muti-verses in 2005, I even made a 3D model to show people. I said how they occur. When you predict something, and it is found later you have fathomed it already. It's not the same as finding something and later working it out. I was quite detailed about it, and suggested that there could be a hole in one of them, and the hole would have a flow into it, and the flow would be visible, and the flow was found as well.

 

I'd say it is still a stretch, considering we really nothing other than the mathematical disciple of the universe at time zero.

To be honest, I will predict something now. We have observed the universe to an early degree. What will happen if we observe the universe to times which contradict when the universe began?


I think this will happen. I think the universe had a beginning, but might be longer than we had ever fathomed.

 

I cover all that as well, I go back to nothing. But never-mind, we should talk about consciousness else we might get in trouble.

 

Indeed. Or maybe not... some mods here don't even mind deterring the discussion from the OP lol

 

I dunno, consciousness may have its own space–time system and its own system of ontologically independent and spatiotemporally organized events (sensations and images) that have as much right to be called ‘material’ as do protons and electrons.

 

The objects objectively have quite a lot of rights to be as physical as the objects inside. Whilst what we see is not the true objective physical world at large, the brain does one thing that ties in a physical transition: that transition being the ability to touch an object, ''feel'' the tangibility of an object and tie it in with the object being observed.

Ironically, when you posted this, I was in progress of writing how the differences between the two worlds of the objective and the subjective. Odd eh? :shrug:

Maybe our brains are quantum entangled

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do however completely agree with the spacetime assertion. You could model special relativity very well under the perception of a human being. If you can model it this way, then I have even asked the question, ''is consciousness a spacetime phenomenon?''

If the brain can create the perception of time (through the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which is a gene which regulates time perception) and if we ''see'' a space inside our perception equally, then both are also unified as a spacetime.

In fact, time may not even exist objectively according to some [physical idea's] by top scientists. If this is true, what we have mistaken a single continuum spacetime, is in fact just an artefact of consciousness alone.

I answered you a while back. Is this you conceding that physics has a place for consciousness, or that you are still laboring under the misconception that consciousness is a matter of magic and faries?

May I also add, which I never did before, but your dog act's in behaviour of packs. This involves an alpha dog, or leader. running about in the middle of the night won't serve anyone, especially your dog, apart from maybe some mythical diety who appreciates those things lol

your dog does not come to the same conclusions as an intelligently aware human does. Indeed, dogs are aware of pain ect, not of their surroundings and by nature not of other's thoughts.

(Thoughts meaning, there is a complex evaluation of behaviour. Ape's manage to understand behaviour arguably better than humans do lol )

The reason why is because apes, dogs, any animal is not bound by behavioural society in their fullest. We do. We don't appreciate at most times, behaviour which does not appease the norm. Dogs don't care if they shit on the carpet, as much as ape's don't care they molest or even murder a baby.

 

The last post I typed was pretty much word for word Hawkingsexcept the first two words "I dunno".

I dunno,

:bravo:

I was interested to see how many arguments it might raise. Hmmm

Looks like you are entangled with Stephen Hawkings Mister

 

or use edit option on your previous post

 

Let's bring this back to life. Let's discuss a new topic for consciousness, like the dynamics. Is consciousness a material phenomenon, as Fred A Wolf has conjectured, is consciousness like a field which surrounds matter?

 

How many consciousness threads do you want? If you haven't found your answer yet you never will.