Consciousness, a Quantum Physics Perspective

Originally Posted by r6r6r

My mother used that phrase a lot. My father just called me ..'you big dummy'....

LOL!

Originally Posted by r6r6r

To get my GED I did buy a math study book specifically for that test. Must of worked because I passed.

That's cool. Recently I pondered starting almost from scratch and begin educating myself in math. I really do have a passion for physics but am totally lacking in the math but that will have to wait, at least for a while. At the moment I've got something more important going on.

[Miss Hepburn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBQ8pC5mTII

Thanks
I sure didn't need quantum physics to know everything is conscious, tho!
Neither does anyone else that has done deep meditation...but the left brainers love proof.
God made them, too - I must remember.

I'm really glad you joined here, Justasimpleguy.

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

I'm really glad you joined here, Justasimpleguy.

Thanks, and so Am I. This is a great venue for expressing all the stuff that's now bouncing around inside my skull.

I've been researching consciousness in earnest and as my understanding permit since roughly 2000, and looking at it from as many perspectives as possible, even from the skeptics' point of view.

Dr. Hagelin is pretty big into the TM movement and being he's a physicist of some renown I respect his take. Plus he's an entertaining speaker. He comes across as authentic too.

He presents an interesting symmetry between physics and consciousness and I'd love to hear his take on the liar.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The measurement problem? No one understands its true nature, hence multiple interpretations of collapse, and they are only interpretations. Much of physics is hopping on-board the Many Worlds interpretation. Sir Roger Penrose has a very unique take on it, a variation of the the Copenhagen interpretation, and it's part of the basis of Orch OR combined with Stuart Hameroff's work with microtubules.

Dean Radin's also carried out some interesting double slit experiments, but mainstream science considers his work and conclusions strictly woo. I can't comment on the validity of his work, but at the very least it shouldn't be dismissed outright.

I don't know what 'the measurement problem' is, a short explanation would be welcome.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Busby

I don't know what 'the measurement problem' is, a short explanation would be welcome.

Thanks.

"If QP is right the the 'Big Bang' would have to have been observed by 'a consciousness carrier' otherwise it would not have taken place."

In a nutshell and in the context of your above post there is only probability until measurement (observation) occurs, transforming probability into reality. The wave function of probability is collapsed into a discreet particle. Light is both a wave (before measurement) and particle (after measurement). It's the double slit experiment.

This is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Then there's the Many Worlds interpretation which states measurement splits off the probabilities into separate and unique Universes.

There's also another main interpretation called Objective Reduction which I'm not totally familiar with but as I understand doesn't carry as much weight in physics as the above interpretations.

There are also different interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation. For instance what is measurement? Is it conscious observation or is observation by experimental equipment enough? I think it's more likely interaction with anything and everything else but I'm not a physicist. Dean Radin recently ran double slit experiments to try to answer this and I believe his conclusion is it's conscious observation but he's not a physicist, just an engineer and scientists dismiss his work and findings as woo.

For a deeper understanding of the supporting arguments there are a ton of YouTube videos, but to be honest no one really knows the answer. QM is weird, even to physicists.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

"If QP is right the the 'Big Bang' would have to have been observed by 'a consciousness carrier' otherwise it would not have taken place."

In a nutshell and in the context of your above post there is only probability until measurement (observation) occurs, transforming probability into reality. The wave function of probability is collapsed into a discreet particle. Light is both a wave (before measurement) and particle (after measurement). It's the double slit experiment.

This is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Then there's the Many Worlds interpretation which states measurement splits off the probabilities into separate and unique Universes.

There's also another main interpretation called Objective Reduction which I'm not totally familiar with but as I understand doesn't carry as much weight in physics as the above interpretations.

There are also different interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation. For instance what is measurement? Is it conscious observation or is observation by experimental equipment enough? I think it's more likely interaction with anything and everything else but I'm not a physicist. Dean Radin recently ran double slit experiments to try to answer this and I believe his conclusion is it's conscious observation but he's not a physicist, just an engineer and scientists dismiss his work and findings as woo.

For a deeper understanding of the supporting arguments there are a ton of YouTube videos, but to be honest no one really knows the answer. QM is weird, even to physicists.

Thanks for taking the trouble, now it's clear I do in fact know that.

But - I don't see any connection with the basic premise - namely that QP states quite clearly (although not understood) that in order for anything to exist an observer is needed.

That's why I've been puzzling over the existence of the BB.

Originally Posted by Busby

Thanks for taking the trouble, now it's clear I do in fact know that.

But - I don't see any connection with the basic premise - namely that QP states quite clearly (although not understood) that in order for anything to exist an observer is needed.

That's why I've been puzzling over the existence of the BB.

God was the observer, or more appropriately Universal Consciousness?

But that's not even right because non-duality posits the witness can never witness itself, whether in the guise of Atman or Brahman, and if one does subscribe to non-duality there is nothing but Brahman. Existence is merely a dualistic expression of its non-duality.

For me I've come to the conclusion it's an exercise in futility attempting to intellectualize it, though it is fun.

Talk about synchronicity. LOL!

I just stumbled across an article titled "Book Excerpt: Something Deeply Hidden" ~ Sean Carroll in my twitter feed. You can Google it and here's a small excerpt from the article:

"The other option is that quantum mechanics represents a violent break from the way we have always thought about physics before, shifting from a view where the world exists objectively and independently of how we perceive it, to one where the act of observation is somehow fundamental to the nature of reality."

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Existence is merely a dualistic expression of its non-duality.

The observed is also the observer. Collapsed state of wave-function as particles is just a phase of existence.

Two particles --fermions or bosons--- in wave-state or particle state are eternally in observance of each other via Gravity ( ) aka mass-attraction, if not also Dark Energy )(.

The BB is just one phase of existence an eternally existent Universe.

Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.
....ergo the simple common sense resultant of eternally existent Universe.......

And I extend this law to occupied Space Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )(.

..................Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space..................

The negative, positive and flat shapes of a torus is inherently bilateral * * as the arrow-of-time ----/\/\/\/---> comes around to meet itself inside the tube.

The diametrically opposite via positive and negative shaped torus induce the peaks and troughs respectively of all charged particles ---fermionic or bosonic --- of our Observed Time { /\/\/\/ } frequencies of reality.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

The observed is also the observer. Collapsed state of wave-function as particles is just a phase of existence.

Two particles --fermions or bosons--- in wave-state or particle state are eternally in observance of each other via Gravity ( ) aka mass-attraction, if not also Dark Energy )(.

The BB is just one phase of existence an eternally existent Universe.

Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.
....ergo the simple common sense resultant of eternally existent Universe.......

And I extend this law to occupied Space Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )(.

..................Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space..................

The negative, positive and flat shapes of a torus is inherently bilateral * * as the arrow-of-time ----/\/\/\/---> comes around to meet itself inside the tube.

The diametrically opposite via positive and negative shaped torus induce the peaks and troughs respectively of all charged particles ---fermionic or bosonic --- of our Observed Time { /\/\/\/ } frequencies of reality.

Possibly true if one subscribes to material reductionism being the underlying reality. That's the science aspet of Science & Spirituality and is pretty much what I said in a previous post: "There are also different interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation. For instance what is measurement? Is it conscious observation or is observation by experimental equipment enough? I think it's more likely interaction with anything and everything else but I'm not a physicist."

My quote you referenced was in the context of spiritual non-duality. If that is the underlying reality then the witness, be it either Atman or Brahman can never witness (observe) itself. That is it can't be both subject and object. That's the spiritual aspect of Science & Spirituality.

I qualified "true" above with "possibly" because even the best physicists have absolutely no clue, hence interpretations. It could be Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Objective Reduction or one of other less accepted interpretations, and none of them are anywhere near fleshed-out. Check out the article I referenced above by Sean Carroll. You can also read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Sir Roger Penrose, the recognized expert on the fine scale structure of the universe, or check out some of his YouTube talks. Penrose and Hameroff are working on their hypothesis of Orc OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction).