Is the universe conscious?

[_Dantana]

Well, I know I shouldn't try to play on the same porch with some of you guys, DrW, Gad, Ea, Sym, Tarski. Who,d I miss? Chap, Lemmie, Maks.... I realize I may get shot for this but, In the words of Lt. Aldo Raine- Shot? Nah, I don't think so. More like chewed out. I've been chewed out before.

In the interest of keeping the board fair and balanced, what with the recent spate of anti-Idealism threads, here's some pseudo-scientific babble for the rest of us.

Is the universe conscious?

"In 2006, German physicist Bernard Haisch, known both for his studies of active stars and his openness to unorthodox science, took Penrose’s idea a big step further. Haisch proposed that the quantum fields that permeate all of empty space (the so-called "quantum vacuum") produce and transmit consciousness, which then emerges in any sufficiently complex system with energy flowing through it. And not just a brain, but potentially any physical structure."

Curt

[_Dantana]

DrW, I don't think this necessarily qualifies as 'woo', which I tend to smirk at just like you. It is seemingly reputable people interpreting data using the scientific method. I guess maybe we're going to need a definition of woo.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Isn't this just a variation of 'God is the Universe' argument? Even if the Universe is concious, whatever that means, does it really matter since it doesn't really impact our existential circumstance?

- Doc

[_Dantana]

Isn't this just a variation of 'God is the Universe' argument? Even if the Universe is concious, whatever that means, does it really matter since it doesn't really impact our existential circumstance?

- Doc

Doc Cam, I didn't include you on my list of highly educated physicalist's not because you're not sharp, but because sometimes you seem to be slightly open to woo. Maybe I'm wrong. (about the woo)

What if one were to just discard the term 'god'. I desire that the universe be something more than just mindless particles bouncing about, because it makes life more satisfying. But the logistics of a separate, isolated unto itself intelligent entity running things is illogical to me.

[_DrW]

DrW, I don't think this necessarily qualifies as 'woo', which I tend to smirk at just like you. It is seemingly reputable people interpreting data using the scientific method. I guess maybe we're going to need a definition of woo.

Some 20 years ago, I read a book entitled, "The Self Aware Universe - how consciousness creates the material world" by Amit Goswami. This one wasn't quite woo either.

Neither was the "Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot, or "Parallel Universes" by Fred Wolf, or "Consilience" by E. O. Wilson, or the works by Brian Greene on string theory, or any of a number of other books on the latest insights in theoretical physics and cosmology.

However, none of these books seem to have much relevance two decades on.

The books that do have relevance two decades on are the established science and math text books, and I probably still have every one I've ever owned. The laws and theories of settled science, and the mathematical principles and equations used to describe them, change very little over time, if at all.

Don't get me wrong, established science gets updated once advances are verified. For example, the standard model of particle physics has been substantially updated in the last 20 years. Once established, and verified, these advances are normally incorporated into the next editions of the standard texts.

As to the concept of a "conscious universe" - give me your definition of consciousness, then show me the data, and then show me the math.

[_Choyo Chagas]

As to the concept of a "conscious universe" - show me the data and then show me the math.

not much of data or math


maybe The Black Cloud of fred hoyle is data?

In 1964, astrophysicists on Earth become aware of a cloud of gas and dust
...
The cloud is revealed to be an alien gaseous superorganism, many times more intelligent than humans

math?

Though the presence of a sentient cloud of gas may seem unlikely, the story is grounded in hard science. The detection of the cloud is described using physics equations, all of which are included in the book. Hoyle brought his experience and knowledge as the Director of the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society into the book. Hoyle was also responsible for the term "Big Bang", though Hoyle himself did not subscribe to the Big Bang theory in favour of his own Steady State Theory.

In a plot twist that foreshadows Hoyle's stance on panspermia, the cloud expresses surprise that intelligent life is capable of forming on planets.

The novel has a recurrent theme of the duplicity and shallowness of politicians compared with scientists.

politicians compared with scientists - this is why i like this scifi...

[_Dantana]

DrW, I started a new line so as not to clog up your excellent thread with pseudo-science and woo. So, I just have to keep coming back to 'first cause', because it really seems to be the only game in town, for the idealism advocate, if one wants to play by the rules of the scientific method. I mean, really, what evidence is there? the Bible? An inner feeling?

My opening gambit is, if particles, and the apparatus the causes them is eternal/infinite/uncreated, then the scientific method of explaining why there is an existence - has problems. But if one can prove that particles came into being spontaneously from the equivalence of nothing....naturalism/materialism wins.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Or is it an un-skillful question?

[_Dantana]

As to the concept of a "conscious universe" - show me the data and then show me the math.

not much of data or math


maybe The Black Cloud of fred hoyle is data?

In 1964, astrophysicists on Earth become aware of a cloud of gas and dust
...
The cloud is revealed to be an alien gaseous superorganism, many times more intelligent than humans

math?

Though the presence of a sentient cloud of gas may seem unlikely, the story is grounded in hard science. The detection of the cloud is described using physics equations, all of which are included in the book. Hoyle brought his experience and knowledge as the Director of the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society into the book. Hoyle was also responsible for the term "Big Bang", though Hoyle himself did not subscribe to the Big Bang theory in favour of his own Steady State Theory.

In a plot twist that foreshadows Hoyle's stance on panspermia, the cloud expresses surprise that intelligent life is capable of forming on planets.

The novel has a recurrent theme of the duplicity and shallowness of politicians compared with scientists.

politicians compared with scientists - this is why i like this scifi...

You are an amazing fellow CC. Where do you find this stuff!

[_Choyo Chagas]

Where do you find this stuff!

from somewhere in the clouds of internet, really, i don't know
when and where did you learn the word "sex?"

..

if you send me a pm with your private email add, i send you the .pdf --- or, .mobi/.epub/.prc/.anytype...

then you will know my private email add and can ask for specific books...

this is the place of advertisement
.https://revngo.com/vadrozsa-panzio-bikafalva.
..

[_Gadianton]

My opening gambit is, if particles, and the apparatus the causes them is eternal/infinite/uncreated, then the scientific method of explaining why there is an existence - has problems. But if one can prove that particles came into being spontaneously from the equivalence of nothing....naturalism/materialism wins.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Or is it an un-skillful question?

Tana, a few points.

- The naturalist, Aristotle, said there are 5 kinds of causes, the two most talked about are efficient cause (how) and final cause (why). Eternal or temporary, science only investigates *how*, *why* isn't on the radar for anything. In fact, the cosmological argument by Craig to show God is the creator is also restricted to *how* and doesn't consider *why*.

- The guy you linked to who talks about planets being conscious and moving out of the way isn't doing teleology (why), none of his consciousness stuff is explaining *why*.

- There is no clear dividing line between what constitutes a naturalist and non-naturalist account of creation. Typically, the ex-nihlo account the Bible presents is taken as the non-naturalist version, and the "always been there" is the naturalist view. When the Kraus book came out, I had to go back and read up on how it happened that an atheist was arguing for ex-nihlo, that was almost as crazy as Thomas Aquinas going Aristotelian.

- As Dr. W said, provide a definition of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a very scientific concept. The guy you linked to is by no means scientifically testing the universe for consciousness. Giving him the benefit of the doubt in the extreme, perhaps he's testing for intelligence, which isn't the same thing. I'll put money on the best human-written chess programs being more complex than a "smart" planet that can shift itself a little to the right, but are chess programs conscious?

- As a metaphor for what W said about textbooks, think of the institution of science as a tight rock band that puts out hit after hit, and think of the credentialed science writers who publish books about reality being a hologram as lead guitarists who step to the front of the stage and shred. Awesome, the guy has talent, but so what? Eighties rock will be listened to and covered until the extinction of humanity but out of all that great stuff, how many of the lead guitar solos wouldn't be better off just going into the trash?

- Finally, as a wise youth adviser from church told me when I bragged about the high decibel level of some rock concert, he said, "Gad, you can only hear so much". That was some profound advice. Likewise, you can only have your mind blown so much by fantastical ideas. Some of these theorists should slow down, and read a book on cinematography or something, and then take one deep idea and figure out how to build up tension in a world of normalcy, and then execute a perfectly timed plot twist. That's the kind of feeling we're after as an audience looking for the next greatest discovery. I kind of think that's what YOU are after, rather than specifically being after a specific kind of answer to something. The universe is conscious, conscious is quantum, quantum is just a hologram inside a virtual machine that was really the 17th dimension of a string in another reality. It's white noise that you can't possibly be getting anything out of but a headache.