The mind is the matrix of all matter?!

S

stavrogin

Registered Member
This was said by the so-called father of quantum theory. He has claimed that consciousness is behind all matter and that matter does not exist in the same state if there is no consciousness. Think of it as a machine of some sort that converts electricity into something else, don't know - power maybe, or light. Without the machine electricity still exist.

He has said "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

I have watched several videos about this theory of his, most of which claim that the double slit experiment proved his claims, but i'm still not buying it.

What do you think about this, what are the implications of the double slit experiment and what are the flaws in his hypothesis?
 
stavrogin said:
This was said by the so-called father of quantum theory.
Click to expand...
Precisely who are you referring to?

stavrogin said:
He has said "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
Click to expand...
No, we don't have to assume that. Religious people have been trying to 'prove' there is an intelligence behind the universe for as long as there has been religion and they have failed. Simply because the person asserting that is a competent scientist doesn't make the claim any less utterly unsupported.

stavrogin said:
I have watched several videos about this theory of his, most of which claim that the double slit experiment proved his claims, but i'm still not buying it.
Click to expand...
Who are you referring to? None of the people who could be called the father of quantum theory (Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Planck) said such things, to my knowledge.

stavrogin said:
What do you think about this, what are the implications of the double slit experiment and what are the flaws in his hypothesis?
Click to expand...
The double slit experiment can be explained entirely without inserting some universal intelligence into the model.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Precisely who are you referring to?
Click to expand...
This was said by Max Planck and i agree, arguments from authority don't prove anything.

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness"
The double slit experiment can be explained entirely without inserting some universal intelligence into the model.
Click to expand...
What is the explanation? This hypothesis claims that consciousness makes the wave collapse.
 
stavrogin said:
This was said by the so-called father of quantum theory. He has claimed that consciousness is behind all matter and that matter does not exist in the same state if there is no consciousness. Think of it as a machine of some sort that converts electricity into something else, don't know - power maybe, or light. Without the machine electricity still exist.

He has said "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

I have watched several videos about this theory of his, most of which claim that the double slit experiment proved his claims, but i'm still not buying it.

What do you think about this, what are the implications of the double slit experiment and what are the flaws in his hypothesis?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter who said it, the mind came after matter unless you believe in the supernatural, and the supernatural is not part of the scientific method. So this wouldn't be in the right forum.

All matter probably does exist by virtue of a force or two, but that alone does not imply to me that there is a consciousness that exists or can exist without matter existing first to house it.
 
If you die will matter cease to exist for everyone else? Of course it won't, so that already tells you matter was here and will be here after you depart.
 
Last edited:
cosmictraveler said:
If you die will matter cease to exist for everyone else? Of course it will so that already tells you matter was here and will be here after you depart.
Click to expand...

After we die, our own biological matter will disseminate into it's most basic components, recycled back into the natural process of reorganization, as we nourish first the organisms of the soil, then the plants, finally becoming nutrition ingested by larger species, possibly even that lettuce you are putting on your BBQ'ed burger, or the grass that was ingested by the steer that became the ground beef. (Sorry if that is too much information, lol...:eek:)

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that jazz.

We are but a small part of the organic gardening cycle of the cosmos, IMO....
 
Rhaedas said:
Even great scientists can be wrong sometimes. They are human after all.
Click to expand...

But even after many of the great scientists have died we still see matter here after they have been long gone. So all of them were right so far.;)
 
If you look at neurons, these cells use up to 90% of their energy maintaining a cationic gradient across the neuron membrane. What is interesting about this situation are the neurons (and all cells) expend energy to create a dynamic situation, which results in loss of entropy and an increase in energy at the membrane. This loss of entropy is connected to the segregating of sodium and potassium cations. Under normal conditions, these cations would prefer to form a uniform solution to maximize entropy. The neuron is using energy to do the opposite.

The net effect is the neuron (and all cells) expend energy to create a dynamic situation that opposes the universal push toward lower energy and higher entropy. Neurons are unique among cells, in that they use the highest percent of their energy (90%) to oppose the universal directions of energy and entropy. What is intelligent about this design, in a intellectual way, is neurons (cells) create conditions which will amplify the universal potential to lower energy and increase energy; things will need to happen in many places to make up the deficit. The cells metobolize, create mutations, etc, to satisfy the universal potentials.

With consciousness we not only get the membrane potential but also neuron firing., This firing will reverse the membrane potential and favors the direction of the universal potentials. But the neurons will continue to use energy to restore their opposition to the universe. The combination of universal opposition (set) and the universe asserting its authority (fire) combined define consciousness. The brain/neurons continue to create lowered entropy, via consciousnes for compact laws and principles. The universe increases entropy to define exceptions. The brain then lowers entropy resulting in an more advanced law, etc. This is just being consistent with the opposinig directions of membrane and univeral potentials ,as they zig zag to the future, with the membrane setting the potential for change by being so contrary to the universe.

Say we worked under the assumption that universal consciousness works the same way as neurons (or vice versa), then it would also create conditons of lowered entropy and higher energy; segregation into higher energy and lower entropy; singularity. The universe wants to move this anomaly toward lower energy and higher entropy; bang (neuron firing within the universal consciousness).
 
Heh, some cheeky mod banned the offending poster and deleted their comments. I guess I shouldn't complain though, even if it does make me look silly. :p
 
Daecon said:
Heh, some cheeky mod banned the offending poster and deleted their comments. I guess I shouldn't complain though, even if it does make me look silly.
Click to expand...
If you think your post makes you look silly, just delete it. If it's been here too long, send me a PM. Moderators have no time limit on deletions. Just make sure you identify the right post.
 
Thanks, I'll remember that for future reference. I wont request a deletion this time as the thread has continued since then, and it'll just make Dave look like the first poster in 5 years instead.

Although in retrospect, I wonder if this was all a subtle hint about the virtues of just reporting spam without responding to it. If it was, then well played. :)
 
Much agreement to what has been said so far, and some disagreement. We're talking about the opinion of a great scientist who was clearly also a Christian. Just like Max Planck, we all have our own worldview which ultimately determines our opinions on the largely theory and opinion-based questions of the true and exact origin of this existence. That said, Max Planck was a genius (and closely affiliated with Einstein) and his opinion about the nature of this universe should be meaningful to you even if you're an atheist. In other words, even if you don't believe that God exists in the classical sense, quantum theory has on several instances successfully challenged the way we view classical science, and it really should be just as challenging to how we view classical religion. To refer back to our man, Max Planck also pointed out that, "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change", which, as it turns out, is both figuratively and quantum physically true.
 
Last edited:
Observers don't have to be conscious. An "observer" in quantum physics, is something that interacts with other things, like a photon detector.
 
I think the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory claims that Quantum level entities do not have properties until an entity has some effect at the classical level.

The above has been mistakenly interpreted to mean perceived by a conscious individual.

It does not mean that an entity does not exist at all until there is interaction or effect at the classical level & does not require the existence or perception/knowledge of a conscious person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top