When idealists hijack quantum mechanics — jorndoe
I can infer that there are other minds, but we only ever know mind in the singular and in the first person. — Wayfarer
It's hard to imagine me being the sole source of consciousness, — CasKev
greater source consciousness of which we are all a part, — CasKev
The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... — CasKev
or is the past constantly adjusted to reflect the collective memories of all conscious entities that exist at any one time? — CasKev
I had the same response once to a lecturer who claimed she was making her own universe. I told her to try to take my wallet and she might notice another mind at work. — Rich
There is no collapse and it is not in the mind. — Rich
The universal memory is constantly morphing. — Rich
It's hard to imagine me being the sole source of consciousness, somehow creating all that exists (including other seemingly self-aware entities) at some subconscious level. It's easier to swallow the idea that there is some sort of greater source consciousness of which we are all a part, and we are co-creating a shared reality. The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality. — CasKev
But of course you would be 'programmed' to behave in certain ways consistent with my first-person experience, so as to appear self-aware. There's no way for me to explicitly prove that another entity is truly self-aware and experiencing the sense of 'I' that I do. I would have to have a way to temporarily 'plug in' to your first-person experience. — CasKev
Doesn't this contradict the findings of quantum mechanics - that something only comes into existence (probability waves collapsing into particulate matter) once it is observed? — CasKev
Cumulative memory is constantly changing in the present moment, but is every aspect of our past already firmly established, — CasKev
For example, did dinosaurs actually exist, or was that 'memory' just part of the story consciousness created to explain our existence in the present moment? — CasKev
It’s interesting that you’re so utterly adamant that David Bohm’s theories of quantum physics are the correct ones, — Wayfarer
whereas in all other regards you are completely dismissive of the idea that science deals in objective truths. — Wayfarer
It must be useful being able to define ‘the truth’ in such a way that it supports any argument you wish to put forward at the time, but it does entail some loss of overall credibility in my view. — Wayfarer
The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... — CasKev
Getting back to this... Assuming quantum behavior at a macro level, what seems more likely? That once observers collapse probability waves, they are permanently collapsed, and future collapses have to be consistent with what has already been collapsed? Or is everything being constantly re-collapsed, and the consistency arises from probability waves being heavily weighted toward what existed previously? (I'm currently leaning toward re-collapse dependent on cumulative collective memory...) — CasKev
Another question... If reality depends on conscious observation, does it not make the most sense for reality to have arisen from a single consciousness? — CasKev
Does Bohmian Mechanics explain the quantum experiments where a particle's behavior is affected retroactively based on a choice made in the present? — CasKev
The former issue with quantum potential is that it acts instantaneously at a distance. But this is a non-issue nowadays because of experimental support for non-local action at school distance. — Rich
So the issue of quantum entanglement remains unexplained? — CasKev
So that is to say it occurs, but has no observable explanation as of yet? — CasKev
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.