It seems near (if not totally impossible) to conceive of a reality where there is no consciousness at any point in it's development. — Benj96

I don’t agree. Isn’t consciousness and metacognition a more recent development in the universe? The history of the universe being one that has been mostly without conscious creatures. If you mean it’s hard to picture something (a universe) without a point of view, then sure. Impossible. Which is why I don’t picture it.

Does that elevate the significance of the state to some fundamental level somehow? Why might any given universe demand, if not absolutely fundamentally need, conscious beings to work or "happen". — Benj96

No. And you seem to be loading the concept with biases by your use of language. The question isn’t one about 'demand' or 'need'. Where did this emotional urgency come from? The question is better stated as a simple ‘why’ is there consciousness?

It seems natural for a conscious being to think consciousness is special. I don't think such a question is answerable in the human terms of quotidian cause and effect.

How important should we make consciousness when we consider physics? This is sort of a hard problem question of a nuanced format. — Benj96

I think this is a question for someone with expertise in such subjects. Otherwise it’s like showing card tricks to a dog.

Is math discovered or invented? That question seems open to many and haunts your OP. The other question haunting your OP is idealism. If this latter were a true account then the universe has always been consciousness, not physical.

What is more interesting to me is why are you asking these questions in this way? It seems like you want to head somewhere specific about consciousness and meaning (transcendence?)

It seems near (if not totally impossible) to conceive of a reality where there is no consciousness at any point in it's development. — Benj96

Why? Isn't this just a form of human arrogance, positioning us (because we are conscious), at some center of the stage, when nothing points to our existence being in any shape or form required for the processes of the universe to develop.

Think of a universe that only had the ability to become 100 000 years old from the initial point of inflation. No life was able to form and matter and energy just became then fizzled out into nothing. With just a few changes to the composition of our universe, that would have happened because it is mathematically possible, and no life would have experienced it.

A universe that is birthed, plays out and ends all the while no one was, is, nor ever will be there to be aware of it, seems, ultimately pointless. — Benj96

So? There's nothing pointing towards out current universe having any point to it whatsoever. Just because you feel something requires a point, doesn't mean it has one. It's like when someone dies in a freak accident and people cry out "why did this happen!?" There's no why, only how.

How important should we make consciousness when we consider physics? This is sort of a hard problem question of a nuanced format. — Benj96

Not really, I'd just say that there's no importance to consciousness in regards to physics, other than physics playing a part in figuring out consciousness.

Bearing in mind that the components in physics formulas are artificial constructs made to standardise relationships for example time (seconds are invented) or space (Meters are again invented). All units of measure are invented not implicit to the universe. Therefore it seems all measurements take observation and the choices of the observer as "standard" in order to frame anything in relationships to one another. — Benj96

This is just backwards. We first observe relations and then invent concepts to measure those relations. The genius of our language of math is that it is an extrapolation of reality into a logical framework. If you have 2 apples, we've assigned a symbol and meaning to the fact there are 2 objects of the same kind in front of us. The rest of math is a similar extrapolation and that's why we talk about "discovering math" or "discovering" something in theoretical physics. There's no choice that influence reality here, math is a slave to reality and a way for us to decode reality.

The universe comes first, we're just an afterthought. When the afterthought thinks they are the prime reason and origin of everything, they become arrogant towards existence and reality.

A universe that is birthed, plays out and ends all the while no one was, is, nor ever will be there to be aware of it, seems, ultimately pointless. — Benj96

A universe full of observers also seems to be ultimately pointless, from my viewing point.

Why can't the planet Pluto do its thing without anyone there to see that it is doing its thing.

What level of quantifiable(?) observers would then justify the existence of any universe. If you had billions of planets of billions of just jellyfish level observers, would it be enough? Or are jellyfish counted as non-observers, comparable to dynamic self-reproducing minerals?

How important should we make consciousness when we consider physics? This is sort of a hard problem question of a nuanced format. — Benj96

Being simply conscious is not observation. All Science will degrade into superstition without observation. Observation is the key method in any Science.

Exactly. The OP is an excellent example of the importance of perspective. From a human philosopher's perspective the OP's declarations make some sense. From the perspective of the Universe itself for 99.99997% of the last 13.7 billion years it makes no sense whatsoever.

:up: :up:

Being simply conscious is not observation — Corvus

But you cannot observe without being conscious. And granted if you're conscious in a sensory deprivation tank then yes maybe all one has to "observe" or be aware of is their thoughts/ internal world.

But generally speaking most conscious people are observing. I use observing in the loosest sense - that is taking in sensations from (ie perceiving) the environment. Doesn't have to be strictly vision.

I think our discord here is one based on semantics/meaning.

People can observe within the context of scientific investigation or observe non scientifically, like watching a sunset.

All Science will degrade into superstition without observation. — Corvus

Obviously. But observation is not limited to science alone. The quality of the observations or the focus of observation, or how they're gone about is what defines whether it's scientific or not

Obviously. But observation is not limited to science alone. The quality of the observations or the focus of observation, or how they're gone about is what defines whether it's scientific or not — Benj96

Obviously, but not necessarily. Bear in mind that some of the greatest scientific discoveries were from random, accidental and leisurely observations too.

Newton's discovery of gravity by watching the apples dropping from the trees, and Flemings discovery of the Penicillin from a mouldy Petri dish come to mind.

A universe that is birthed, plays out and ends all the while no one was, is, nor ever will be there to be aware of it, seems, ultimately pointless. — Benj96

A universe that is birthed, plays out and ends might very well be ultimately pointless even if it at some brief interlude during its existence is was fleetingly, partially and myopically observed from within.

“ A universe that is birthed, plays out and ends might very well be ultimately pointless even if it at some brief interlude during its existence is was fleetingly, partially and myopically observed from within.”

-Siri


Such observation from within , when it begins to play out it’s brief sojourn , can not yet conceive that his being is not solitary, but bounded by a hidden objective.

Bear in mind that some of the greatest scientific discoveries were from random, accidental and leisurely observations too. — Corvus

Or drugs.