Consciousness, a Quantum Physics Perspective
 

It's a John Hagelin lecture at Stanford and it's on YouTube. Here's a brief description.

"Renowned quantum physicist, John Hagelin (PhD, Harvard), presents the thesis that consciousness is a unified field that contains nature's programming code and transcending through meditation is a pathway to hack / access consciousness."

It's a long watch, about 1 1/4 hours, but in my opinion well worth the watch.

Thank you for this. I love watching physics lectures and will watch this one tonight. I've been looking for someone to acknowledge the connection, if the lecture is anything like the description :)

<3

I don't think you'll be disappointed. :D

Another good one is "The Primacy of Consciousness - Peter Russell - Full Version"

"Peter Russell proposes that mind is more fundamental than matter. He explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and argues that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings."

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

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

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and ego, are a resultant of occupied space interactions/interference and not the other way around.

Metaphysical-1 is concepts of Space not an actual space ergo not an occupied space phenomena.

Metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) { occupied space }, and

Metaphysical-4 Dark Energy )( { occupied space }, have not been quantified nor quantised yet we know of their occupied space existence indirectly via their effects on other occupied space phenomena.

This latter above is not true of Metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

i = ego ergo metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept and is outside{ beyond/meta } the bisected/cross-section torus I have presented above and here below.

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

That's way above my pay grade. :icon_smile:

You'll have to take that up with Mr. Russell or Mr. Hagelin.

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.

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.

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

Pathways of rational, logical common sense, no more, no less.

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

A big bang is just one of ocurrence of perhaps an infinite set i.e the big bang was not the creation of an eternally existent, occupied spaceUniversenor can a big crunch be the destruction of occupied space Universe.

There exists no cosmic source{ @ }, only local ignorance { *^* }.

https://www.sciencealert.com/penrose...clic-cosmology

'No the train wont stop rolling, no it wont slow down'....Ian Anderson Locomotive Breath LINK

----\/\/\/\/----> Arrow-of-Time { occupied space } is one way and that means we cannot return to the womb.

Consciousness at minimum is two, with line{s}-of-relationship adjoining the two (o)(o) ergo otherness and awareness that is at minimum, positive shaped geodesic Gravity and negative shaped geodesic Dark Energy.

I.e geometrically diametric opposite phenomena, that, we identify as occupied Space ( )( )

Math just isn't my thing. Never has been and likely never will be.

When I was fascinated with IQ testing during my less secure years I self-administered a bunch of tests and always did well and especially with language and spatial relations. There are many different ways or aspects of knowing,

During Air Force basic training I was one of two people in my flight of 48 who scored well enough on a language battery to be offered a choice to get out of my guaranteed contract for computer programming and enter the Defense Language Institute for either Russian or Chinese. Computer programing was considered a critical need in 1980 but apparently language was more critical.

I stuck with computer programming, mainly because the preliminary DLI training was 52 weeks whereas computer programming was only 11. I've been a mainframe computer techie since (1981). Oddly enough my greatest strength in the field isn't my technical expertise, which isn't anything to sneeze at, but a very intuitive approach to the task at hand.

So no disrespect intended but what you posted is all Greek to me. :biggrin:

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

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

...."Pathways of rational, logical common sense, no more, no less."....

Ive been a jack-of-all-trades and master of known most of my life i.e. Ive had many various types of jobs over my lifetime.

Maybe 50 differrent fields of learning, practice and execution ergo more of a generalized comprehensive learning approach rather than a specialist type.

My foray into geometry in recent post above were just touching the surface and rather simple expressions. Spherical trig is where things get tough and Ive barely touched that in my own life as I flunked out in 9th grade general math.

To get my GED I did buy a math study book specifically for that test. Must of worked because I passed. I had one job as helper installing those large satelite tv dishes. The owner told my wife, that I was lacking about 6 months of regular education.


Jack-of-many-trades, master of none, thats me. :color:

LOL!



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.

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

Thanks :smile:
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.:tongue:

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.

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.

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. :biggrin:

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."

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

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. :icon_wink:

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).

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

Read that book in early 90's and many others of similar vein.

Uni-V-erse is self observant of itself, via, all of its parts and the resultant of some collections of the parts as humans and their access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

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

Torus has inherently bilaterality via the internal arrow-of-time ----/\/\/\/--> coming around to meet itself see interaction of two hemis-sheres of brain--- and humans are the most complex bilateral biologics/souls :biggrin: of Uni-V-erse.

All charge is resultant induction via inversion ---ex (><)(><)--- phenomena of positive shaped geodesics of Gravity ( ) aka mass-attraction and negative shaped geodesics of Dark Energy )(.

Universe is composed of ultra-high number of tori{ my speculation } that form as femions and bosons.

Ex the unstable meson{ strong nuclear force } I believe is composed of two great tori. OO

Six great tori define a quark OO OO OO LINK

It could all be true in one sense and yet not in another. Think of the simulation hypothesis only replace computer with Brahman. :biggrin:

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

Well yeah if by "material" you mean occupied space.

Other than occupied space I have no idea what other truth you may think you are suscribed to.

Spirit-1 as metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts and ego are concepts of Space, not an actual occupied or non-occupied space.



I have no idea what your "simulation hypothesis" is, nor what your Brahman is.

Everything Ive presented is rather simple stuff based on rational, logical common sense. No complex mathematical or physics equations involved.

People like to simplify by stateing Universe just IS. Sure but I like to go a step or to further and state, IS what specificly.

"Is modulation or moderation of angle and frequency"...Bucky Fuller

I can't post links yet so you'll have to Google simulation hypothesis, ancestor simulation or Nick Bostrom's trilemma. It's basically the possibility that all of existence as we know it is merely a simulation in the computer of an unimaginably advanced species, maybe even our descendants should our species survive. Furthermore the rules governing the simulation do not have to reflect the rules governing the simulator.

Brahman (in Hinduism) the ultimate reality underlying all phenomena.

Replace computer with Brahman and what we end up with is a seemingly dualistic simulation (illusion) within an underlying non-dualistic reality. My sense of it is Brahman is the unified field and the fundamental forces we know as the basis of our reality are just manifestations of the unified field at lower energy levels. Apply enough energy and they will all fold into one unifying field and differentiation will be no more. So occupied or unoccupied space is only relevant in our current reality, not at the level of the unified field. Actually the four forces folding into a unified field is more than just my impression. It's one of the driving forces behind high energy experimental physics.

If you haven't already watched Dr. Hagelin's Stanford presentation you can watch roughly 11 minutes starting at the 11 minute mark.

If you want to understand what I'm trying to convey about non-duality and Brahman you can always give "Defining God by Swami Sarvapriyananda" on YouTube a watch. He's a very interesting and entertaining speaker but if you don't want to watch the whole video you can check it out at the 35 minute mark for 5 or 10 minutes.

He speaks of waves in one continuous ocean of existence, the waves defining our reality but they are all within the vast ocean of existence, which I take to be nothing other that the unified field.

..
 

Sounds like the movie The Matrix, and Ive been hearing this scenario being presented for a few years.



1} Ive not seen any evidence for any computer on earth that create a 3D animation, that, then invents computers that we do have evidence of, and that is 2D simulations of 3D perspective that are not truly/really 3D,


3} the father of black hole mathematics, Jabcob Bekenstien, came to the conclusion in 80's and published in Scientific American, that, we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D.


So the latter, #2 above, is closet we come to you 'were living in computer matrix, run by some creatures outside of our known universe ergo a small u local universe'...


Even if that were true, do not believe for even one second that means the the larger Universe that includes those creatures who created us are inside another local universe, inside another local universe etc , to infinity.


When I was maybe 10 or 11 years old, I was laying in a field with two friends, and were looking at all the stars, I said to my buddies, maybe our universe inside another much larger humans body, and that body was inside another much larger human body and so and so on.


My one buddy says why you thinking stuff like that.:icon_eek:





Sounds like youve gone off into Alan Turing territory. I saw the movie last year. Now that actor has come out today as Tesla in "The Current Wars".


Your Brahman is Gravity( ) and Dark Energy )( . and they induce our Observed Time reality ----/\/\/\/---> as the entropic arrow-of-time that is varied sets of frequency we observe as sine-waves ^v^v^



I dont see or grasp where you getting this concept of non-dualistic reality.


Finite occupied space Universe is embraced by the macro-infinite non-occupied space. That is the primary cosmic duality, not non-duality.





The torus is uniting via the surface geodesics of Gravity ( ) Dark Energy )( from which they invert to create the peaks and troughs of the sine-wave relaity we observe as sine-waves of Observed Time ergo /\/\/\/ and that is an entropic ---arrow-of-time ----/\/\/\/--> conclusion by most physicists.



Sorry I dont have a good animated graphic to prove this conceptualized phenomema. It is not that hard to visualize conceptually with some brain effort and maybe two graphics.






Your confused and have been misinforme from the get go, i.e your thinking or believing that the field was not eternally unified is false premis. The unified field of Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy)( are eternally existent, as is the sine-wave arrow-of-time ----/\/\/\/--->





False and does not follow any paths of rational, logical common sense. Occupied space is relevant to our finite Universe of Gravity( ), Dark Energy )( and the resultant sine-waves ^v^v^ of Observed Time Reality







And all of those forces are unified ---and a resultant of gravity and dark energy--- are embraced by ergo unified by Gravity and Dark Energy.


Differrentiation does not mean the are not all connected as the one, finite, occupied space Universe. Gravity --and I presume Dark Energy-- we know acts any two or more particles no matter the distance and no matter if their fermionic or bosonic.



Not yet. I will go look in one of you last posts. If their stating what your stating above, they are not using following the shorter pathways of rational, logical common sense that will lead them to what Ive presented here.

Maybe it's just semantics, but at 246 GeV electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force unify into the electroweak force. Two Nobel prizes were awarded for that work.

It's theorized the electroweak force isn't even a fundamental force and if enough energy is applied, on the order of 10 to the 15th GeV, it would unify with the strong nuclear force. That's GUT or Grand Unified Theory.

It's further posited if even more energy were applied, requiring an accelerator 1,000 light years in diameter, GUT would unify with gravity and that's TOE or Theory of Everything. Aside from the energy requirements the other big obstacle is there's no viable theory of quantum gravity.

You can find all this on YT under "GUTs and TOEs" narrated by Dr. Don Lincoln, an experimental particle physicist with Fermilab.

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

Yeah, I was paying attention to that info when it first came out.




Yeah Ive been through all that it is not semantics. Differrentiation exists eternally as Gravity and Dark Energy primarily. They are diametric opposites of a torus positive and negative shape.



Yeah, well Lee Smolin states it would take a accellerator the size of solar system to quantise gravity ---and I would add in Dark Energy---.


gravity are unified {connected } as that changes its location as the postive and negative surface of a torus. Postive > negative > positive > negative.


Here is a rather simple example that even your simple guy mind should be able to grasp since you not willing to consider a torus.


..)....is a geodesic curved line and one side is concave and one side is convex. This is inherently duality that you can never destroy/cancel-out. I could go on, but anything I say appears to go in one ear and out the other with you.



Been there done that over the years, Learned from and move on. When you want move forward ----/\/\/\/---> with me, with what Ive learned, processed and recalled, redigested, learned, process and redigested many times along with my own rather simple discovers and relevant, along the way.


I think you will need to place your ego and much of your education of to the side, temporariy-- to see a rational, logical common sense road forward, or beyond or through all of the noise so many theories out there.


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

Hey man, thanks for the conversation but I think it's gone as far as it can.

Peace, over and out.

Greetings.

Occasionally, I enjoy delving into Consciousness Studies and Neurotheology, it just seems that a lot of scientists are still hung up on the notion of Consciousness as being emergent from matter and not matter as being emergent from Consciousness for me to be really interested.

The latter would bring them too close to an idealistic version of a "creator God" for scientists to invest much time and funding into it.

Also take into account the "hard problem of Consciousness", why do people have different experiences given the same set of qualia? Past experiences and conditions must have shaped the way individual consciousness reacts to a certain stimuli...but what of collective Consciousness or a Universal Consciousness?

Bem's Global Consciousness Project hasn't been given a lot of support from the scientific sector and not much has been heard from it since 2011...in fact, most of what I see on YouTube regarding Consciousness Studies is from 2009 -2012...it is like nobody has discovered anything "new" in the realm of Quantum Physics in the past 6 - 8 years..and it seems like the Noetic Sciences (which is seen as a Pseudoscience by many other scientists) was like a passing fad that just fizzled out.

I don't really involve myself in Consciousness studies much anymore...haven't for the past 6 months or so, ever since I made the executive decision that Cosmic Consciousness is something I would rather experience than just read about....Brahman was something I would rather experience than go "well, that's what the Vedas all say anyway...We ARE that!".

Last night I watched a pretty decent video on YouTube...it came up as a "recommendation" for me and I had nothing better to do at the time:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HD4WthE414k

Other than that, it seems like science only studies what makes people "conscious" as opposed to "consciousness" our states of awareness in this physical world have nothing to do with Consciousness, only our ability to "tune in" or "receive" it. Even though radio waves are everywhere, a broken radio isn't going to receive them...maybe they will just pick up static...maybe one or two stations, but not the one that is being broadcast directly from Source since time immemorial.

This is why I don't involve myself much anymore...in the study of consciousness, in any discussions relating to it...even in discussions relating to spirituality in general, because I honestly don't see the point because if there IS a point, then my own limited perception of how to go about conveying that point always gets in the way leaving me with the question "why do I bother?"

Now, I meant for that question to the Universe to be rhetorical... apparently the Universe doesn't grok rhetoric; "to show you the difference between action and speech" which is as good as it gets from Source.

The Peter Russell talk is interesting and he brings up action and specifically speaking about light. A photon does not experience space or time. From its perspective point of emission and absorption are coincident. It's an exchange of action.

From our physical perspective we perceive it crossing space and time and then try to determine if it's a wave or particle, leading to the measurement problem.

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

Higgs was the unifying force for all matter particles and its quantum particle was discoverd by LHCollider some years ago.

Since then LHC has not been able to discover/uncover the next layer/shell.

As I stated previously, Lee Smolin makes clear it would take a collider the size of solar system to quantise gravity ergo we are left with only with our mathematical approach to seize-the-day!

Lee Smolin does not consider Dark Energy )(, or if he does it is Ive not yet familiar with his comments.

Eventually he and others will come around to the rational, logical common sense conclusions I have come to.

The geometry of the torus ( )( ) having diametric opposites ---><--- of positive ( ) and negative )( shaped space is relatively simple for most adults to grasp.

That Observed Time ----/\/\/---> consciousness * * is a resultant of Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( also does not take a physicists or genius grasp.

The actual discover equations for GUTOE is still not known ergo the disscussion goes forward in Time ----/\/\/---> and space ( )( ).
...................Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space...................

* * = bilateral consciousness

i = ego as spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } and metaphysical-1, via mind/intellect/concepts

If others want to know the known the basic fundmamentals, then they need to begin here with "The Building Blocks of Universe" video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

The author makes clear that Lee Smolin has now switch his position and agrees with above regarding Time.

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

Oops, that last link was not the one referencig Lee Smolin. Sorry. Here is the correct one and it is near the end where he explains Smolins switch ---180 degrees--- on his view of time to be more aligned with my view.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7J49UTns8

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

All consciousness{ twoness } ---ergo mind-fullness--- arises from the 12 quantum fields and they are subcatagories of these four primary fields ---electron, neutrino, up quark and down quark--- associated with specific quantum particles of matter.

Electron....electron neutrino v...........up quark v.....down quark v { least mass }

Muon-E^.....muon neutriono^....strange quark^....charm quark^ { more massive }

...Tau-E^..........tau neutrino^.....bottom quark^.......top quark^ { most massive }