Do you think that the 'multiverse speculation' (that there are potentially infinitely many 'other' universes) can be or ought to be similarly constrained? — Wayfarer

Absolutely. If anyone is extrapolating some aspect of reality to infinity, it has to be wrong. Just because dichotomies are what rule metaphysical logic. The infinite is impossible if symmetry-breaking is by definition the finitude of arising within complementary limits.

Agree. I think an awful lot of specious reasoning is associated with multiverse ideas. (Not that it isn't fertile ground for science fication.)

Right - so what you're saying is that 'cosmic mind' is analogous to the 'noumenal'. Agree they might be rationally inferred, but as such cannot be empirically validated. — Wayfarer

Yes. If noumenal Mind could be empirically validated, we wouldn't be discussing it on a philosophy forum. But, since the 20th century, scientific validation has become more Mathematical (rational) than Empirical (sensory), more inferential than observational. For example, the scientific theory of an ethereal Quantum Field*2*3 as the fundamental essence of reality has led some thinkers to equate it with a Cosmic Mind*4. The theoretical "points" that define the field are mathematical entities that do not occupy space or exhibit mass. Hence, the foundation (substance??) of our material world is postulated to be immaterial*3 : more like a mental definition than a material object*5.

Since it is contrary to my current understanding, in order to make sense of the Brain-as-receiver-of-cosmic-signals notion featured in Dan Brown's fiction (OP), I've been motivated to venture into such speculative (fictional?) Physics/Philosophy. But I'd still like to see some empirical evidence (pro or con) that the human brain could conceivably be a passive receptacle for meaning, instead of an active generator of ideas. Until then, I'll continue to assume that my thoughts are my own. And that the Cosmos is not an eternal deity (Spinoza), but a temporary physical/mental system born of uncertain parentage. :smile:



*1. Noumenal Science :
The statement "quantum is noumenal" is not a standard scientific or philosophical claim, but a specific idea within certain interpretations of quantum mechanics and philosophy. It suggests that the reality that physics describes (the "phenomenal") is different from the true, underlying reality (the "noumenal"), which is the case in Emmanuel Kant's philosophy. Some physicists propose that "noumenal" descriptions of quantum systems, which are local and complete, are what quantum mechanics is truly about, rather than the observer-dependent phenomena we observe. 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+is+noumenal

*2. In Universal Quantum Field theory (QFT),the universe's fundamental building blocks are not particles, but universal quantum fields*3 that permeate all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are considered to be excitations or "ripples" in these underlying fields. This framework views fields as the fundamental entities and is the basis for particle physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+fundamental
Note --- Most particles, except Photons & Gravitons, possess measurable rest mass. But quantum Fields are supposed to be composed of statistical relationships between dimensionless points.

*3. A universal massless quantum field is a theoretical concept that posits a field permeating the universe with zero mass, with implications for topics like dark energy and dark matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+massless

*4. Quantum Field = Cosmic Mind :
The "quantum field - cosmic mind" is a concept from speculative physics and philosophy that suggests the quantum field is a fundamental, universal consciousness connecting all things, including individuals. This idea, which overlaps with spiritual and mystic traditions, posits that our minds are not isolated but are expressions of this larger, non-local field, leading to the conclusion that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe itself, not just an emergent property of the brain. It's important to note that this is not a universally accepted scientific theory, but rather a group of hypotheses and philosophical interpretations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+cosmic+mind
Note --- I prefer to say that Information (energy), not Consciousness (mind), is the essence of physical & mental reality.

*5. What is Matter? "
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

:eyes: :rofl:

Nope. I was making the point that a hallmark of “consciousness” is that it is embodied and agential. — apokrisis

You didn't make it well.

It feels like an alien hand is now in control. Sensations are thrusting at us. Thoughts and ideas are being imposed. — apokrisis

Which is specifically not what the receiver theory entails, or imagines. It jettisons this entirely to even get moving. Given this context, I understand what you've said and why. But then it's simply ignorance of what's posited in this theory (and again, I've already acknowledged its weak and we have no good reason to take it on).

And then we have this other nonsense about the brain being an antenna tuned into a cosmic psychic frequency. — apokrisis

This is a strawman like no other. Turns out, I was right in my charge.

Being embodied and agential seems so effortless that yes, maybe it could be just a broadcast picked up off the airwaves.

But then nope. The neurobiology to get the job done is what we should reserve our amazement for. — apokrisis

This says nothing. It says that maybe the receiver theory is correct (in some way). And then just says no, lets be in awe of something else.

Everything you said can be true, and the basis of consciousness can still be a signal from without. I don't care to go further.

I wouldn't expect empirical support for a theoretical philosophical conjecture, that postulates a Cosmic Mind of which our little limited logic-parsers are fragments. But what do you think of his Mind as "foundation of Reality" and Idealism as "ultimate Realism" theory? — Gnomon

I've watched about 14 hours of Kastrup. He strikes me as someone I would consistently love to talk to, and would consistently laugh at through the course of our conversations. He has a great mind, imo, and some good ideas. But there are some extremely fundamentally concerning issues with his theories.

If 'mind' is the foundation of reality, he still has a massive job getting the sensation of the physical in. And he's never adequately done that, in my watching. I think the bold is interesting, and exactly hte reason responses like akroposis' up there is unwarranted. We couldn't seek empirical evidence, and we can't rest on incomplete descriptions via biology. Its is/ought all over again and I prefer to just entertain all comers while resisting magical thinking.

Everything you said can be true, and the basis of consciousness can still be a signal from without. I don't care to go further. — AmadeusD

You are being histrionic. This is a simple case of humans using their latest technology to explain the mind. The marvel of radio broadcast - the BBC world service as a message bounced off the ionosphere - offers a striking analogy. And more than a few people have built their own pet theories of mind around it. More than a few scientists indeed.

In Universal Quantum Field theory (QFT),the universe's fundamental building blocks are not particles, but universal quantum fields*3 that permeate all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are considered to be excitations or "ripples" in these underlying fields. This framework views fields as the fundamental entities and is the basis for particle physics. — Gnomon

here I take a more radical view: space and time don’t exist at all. Like “observers”, they are convenient labels – bookkeeping devices – but there are no physical entities corresponding to them. Therefore, quantising gravity doesn’t mean quantising space-time, it means quantising the gravitational field (upgrading Einstein’s c-numbers into q-numbers) in the same way that other fields are quantised.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKCP5k1RTmM&t=13s

:up: :up:

here I take a more radical view: space and time don’t exist at all. Like “observers”, they are convenient labels – bookkeeping devices – but there are no physical entities corresponding to them. Therefore, quantising gravity doesn’t mean quantising space-time, it means quantising the gravitational field (upgrading Einstein’s c-numbers into q-numbers) in the same way that other fields are quantised. — PoeticUniverse

I would disagree. What emerges as fundamental are the invariances. The constraints of symmetry and then the degrees of freedom that result.

And the relativity vs quantum issue is about how the real number constraints captured in special relativity as it’s Poincare group structure, then turn out to have their gauge complex number symmetries as the local degrees of freedom.

So SR wants to constrain a 4D metric to a collection of spacetime points. But those points then gain the possibility of having an intrinsic spin structure. The realm of QFT organised particles or excitations arise as being that which the global Poincare invariance can’t suppress and now a further internalised level of symmetry and its breaking.

Everyone comes at relativity and QFT seeking to make one the master of the other. But a systems view says that never works. What works is complementarity. Relativity and QFT must somehow be a unity of opposites. Each is what constructs the other as that which it is.

So SR embodies the SO(3) spin invariance of a spacetime point. But that is also what makes possible the SU(2) gauge freedom that produces chiral particles with intrinsic spin organisation. The points of spacetime can turn out to have an internal fibre bundle structure where they become a thermalising network trafficking in the broken symmetry of their “twists”.

The metric can grow and its points can cool. It is that relation which is the fundamental reason why there can be anything at all.

So the big question is can gravity be assimilated to QFT as gravitons. And Lineweaver for example makes a good case for how gravitational dof are not really quantum but emergent at the level of the particle vectorisation that takes place at the reheating moment when inflation ends.

Vectorisation begins the Standard Model era by producing QFT particles doing their thermalising thing. The next step is the particles picking up a significant mass term with the Higgs symmetry breaking. And so you now have a sub-c story of vectors and spinors that are individuated. The points of spacetime have developed an inner spin structure that carries some momentum and position state that is individually distinctive and so now is mixing as a statistical ensemble - a thermal gas, that soon enough condenses into a matter dust.

So we arrive at massive particles as gravitational degrees of freedom - the matter dust wanting to clump into cosmic structure. But also a matter dust - a dust of protons and electrons - also organised under U(1) electromagnetic charge.

We can see right there how the complementarity principle is so fundamental it is organising everything at the start and still organising it at the end.

We have gravity as the mass of a Poincare-constrained real number point. And we have EM as the energy of a QFT complex number structured charge polarity. Two kinds of local dof. And the cosmic web is the comoving pattern of planets, stars, galaxies and filaments that results as electric charge largely neutralises itself as atomic structure, allowing the relatively weakness of gravity to show through as the complementary organiser of what exists. The extrinsic spin story of the turbulent and swirling heavens, dissipating angular momentum on the way to collapsing into black holes where it can.

This is the paradigm shift. Expecting a dichotomous logic whenever things get fundamental. Nature exists as a dynamical balance. And Nature may evolve in terms of its topological organisation - turn from a relativistic plasma to a comoving matter dust. But the same general principle of arriving at a mutual balance must always apply.

Which is why we shouldn’t try to dissolve one side of anything into what seems its other side. Both gravitational dof and electric charge dof rise to the surface in time as the Cosmos is thermally shaken down into its simplest possible invariant states. And one is the distillation of Poincare invariance, the other of gauge invariance.

You have massive and electrically neutral atoms doing their gravitating and radiating dance in an empty void. Or at least effectively empty as the quantum vacuum is now as cold in its energy density content as it is flat in its SR extent.

What emerges as fundamental are the invariances. The constraints of symmetry and then the degrees of freedom that result. — apokrisis

:chin: