Posts about...
#consciousness
#meditation
#MRI
#music
The laws do not necessarily have to be the same, but we cannot predict models where they are not. In other words, if each and every universe had a different set of laws, we would never be able to determine what those laws are because it is just conceptual. A universe that did not have laws for…
I don’t understand why the laws would be the same in each universe. I suppose it would then mean that the unpredictable nature of consciousness is the only thing that sets the difference between each universe – but it is this unpredictability that makes me think universes with different laws and different manifestations of consciousness are possible. But again it comes to the same conclusion: consciousness was necessary for the universe to begin.
I believe that individuality resides only in the physical brain. If I were very devoted to my work, for example, I could allow a colleague to take pieces of my brain away, bit by bit. As each piece gets removed, the extent of my awareness decreases until eventually – I am no longer self aware. This is also what makes me think that consciousness may be an inherent property of all information, because the level of consciousness that can be observed changes depending on the physical substrate. Though I need to think more about whether consciousness needs to be self aware to exist. Also just the fact that consciousness exists outside of space and time to me must mean that ‘pieces’ of consciousness can have no individuality – there can only be one. I am unsure of what existence means outside of space and time, and this seems to be where my understanding is stuck. The more I think about it however, ‘being’ doesn’t require space or time. I suppose I might have to leave it at incomprehensible.
Perhaps having the event horizon of our universe observed from the outside, that creates the link? This is a very interesting point, and I agree. Building off of the idea that consciousness outside of space and time, there can only be one observation to create the universe – and according to us this observation would be eternal. I think it more likely then that the ability to experience came with the creation of the universe, an extension of the information principle. So all physical entities have the capability of experiencing, but there are only a few that can collect, quantify, direct and make use of these experiences (life). In this sense, the entire universe is created in God’s image, and we are the part of God that knows that it is.
I have a question about observation of the event horizon outside of space and time (I’m going to use your definition of God here for simplicity). Without time, when God observed the universe, He simultaneously observed the entire existence of the universe. To me this must mean that his effect on the universe must be the same throughout time – which is why I shy away from the idea that consciousness is implanted into babies in some way. How this relates to our own ability to create however, I’m having a hard time grasping. What do you think?
Of course there are many different conceivable laws, and most of them (if not all of them) would be less friendly toward our existence. Unless of course our existence was entirely different than it is today, which may be plausible, I am unsure. And even with multiple universe theories, the…
I seemed to be confusing myself when talking about definite states. I like talking about information spaces more so here’s what I’m thinking:
The information space of our universe must be observed to exist (I like to think of this as observing the event horizon of the universe). Information space is defined by the laws that relate its information states. Like you said, these laws are based on time and do not exist outside of it. Yet there are many conceivable laws different than those in our universe, so why aren’t the laws something else? Somewhere along the line, a choice out of the other possibilities for laws, and in extension information spaces, had to be made (ignoring multiple universe theories). But more than that, wouldn’t the laws have to be observed continuously in our world? These laws exist whether there is something to measure their effects or not. Now that I think about it, we perceive consciousness to exist continually because it is out of time. So saying it observes continuously really isn’t saying much at all, but still an interesting line of thought. These laws are predictive; we use them to predict what will happen to the extent of probabilities. They define the deterministic world. So using your definition of God, He creates the determined world, or the information space. What I don’t understand is the distinction between consciousness inside and outside the universe. In fact I feel they must be the same from lack of any information space outside of our universe. This got me thinking about ‘made in God’s image.’ We seem to have the same ability to create, but I may be misunderstanding the concept. I would like to hear further what you take that to mean in the context of consciousness.
I highly enjoyed your example of measuring both particles at the same time, really interesting and I understand infinity/nothing much better. When I read it, the ‘movie’ playing in my mind split in to two worlds – one containing each reference point. Beyond multi-verses, this brings up the question of individuality. Do you think each consciousness is an individual, so that we are both separate from each other and from God (very similar question as above)? I don’t think there would be individuality, because each observer collapses the wave function in the same way – but I need to think more about this.
I was less aware of how important the right words are when I wrote Facing Up to Consciousness. When I wrote about ‘judgment’ I was trying to point out that through language we can tell someone what we are experiencing in terms that they can relate to. Other than communication, there is no real way to find out what it’s like to experience something. I really like your example of beauty; it fits nicely because it is much more than ‘emergent property’ of the physical system.
I would like to spend longer writing but I’ve run out of time; so let me know if I’ve typed any blatant misconceptions.
I feel the same way as you do. I hope that this may lead to others joining in on our discussions.
What do you believe the universe existed as before consciousness (i.e. probability soup or…)?
—Well, the universe had to become definite in some aspects for our consciousness to appear. The…
I have had a neurotic desire to understand how and why people function do the way they do for several years now, and Richard Dawkins has simply been unable to satisfy my need for understanding. Classical physics with standard evolutionary biology was too matter-of-fact in this mysterious…
This is the post I was referring to in that last ask. It’s pretty long, so click through for the rest.
