Those who suggest the universe is conscious, we are fragments / fractals of the conscious universe observing itself, are correct. But our physical body and consciousness not only observes the universe, we are actually the particle consciousness in the very ACT of creating the universe. — ken2esq
This means that all the far galaxies we observe through telescopes actually did not exist until we peered through those telescopes and then collapsed the waves of probability out there into what we expected to see. Strangely, this means scientists often, if not always, create rather than discover. — ken2esq
Reality is a dance / battle between two opposing forces, a consciousness that, by observing waves of probability, collapses them into particular reality. This is the process of creation. This I call the Particle Consciousness. On the other side is Wave Consciousness, which seeks to turn particular reality into waves, I think by blocking/destroying/hemming in the observations of the Particle Consciousness. — ken2esq
The fact we create reality with our EXPECTATIONS of what we will find, is a heavy responsibility. — ken2esq
Well, there is much more to this theory. — ken2esq
If anyone has logic, reason, evidence, scientific studies, that refute this, I am happy to reconsider / revise. — ken2esq
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — Carl Sagan
I am writing a theory of the universe that explains Fermi's paradox. The notion that we live in a conscious universe, that we are part of that conscious universe, experiencing itself, is not new or novel. — ken2esq
No, my theory is NOT "true." Of course not. But I believe it is MORE TRUE than anything yet postulated. — ken2esq
And, yes, the WHOLE THING is a theory, based on the fact we observe things in nature that we cannot reconcile. — ken2esq
This is philosophy, not a hard science. It's not physics. — ken2esq
So wherever there is quantum uncertainty, when we collapse it, we CHOOSE what it collapses into. — ken2esq
Lastly, have you considered how all the greatest scientific leaps were scoffed when first presented? Do you really want to scoff at this because it is too much of a leap WITHOUT actually giving me one logical or evidentiary argument against it? Basically just rejecting it for novelty?!!! Really?!!! Novelty??? — ken2esq
Everytime the word "quantum" comes up anywhere except a discussion about physics, I know for a fact whatever is coming is going to be nonsense. — Lionino
You fail to recognize that when we observe various phenomena we cannot explain, and people come up with various individual explanations for each of them — ken2esq
though the single theory has no scientific proof, its greater simplicity gives it greater credence, all else being equal. — ken2esq
All metaphysical notions are pure speculation. We can still evaluate their internal logical and the extent to which they explain and reconcile with what we observe. Newness and novelty are NOT flaws any more than age supports a theory. — ken2esq
simplicity gives it greater credence, all else being equal. — ken2esq
My best evidence for this is that it resolves the Fermi paradox, which is that we definitely SHOULD have picked up radio waves / other indicia of alien life from the older parts of the Universe, and it is inexplicable that we have not. — ken2esq
Everytime the word "quantum" comes up anywhere except a discussion about physics, I know for a fact whatever is coming is going to be nonsense. — Lionino
Every time we observe anything not yet observed, we thereby collapse the waves of probability in that newly observed area, and replace them with fixed reality, and what we replace them with is what we EXPECT. We literally choose what we find around each unexplored corner of the universe. We are on the forefront of creation. — ken2esq
when even one of the most illustrious exponents of the discipline said that nobody understand quantum physics — Wayfarer
we are not “Becoming aware” of a phenomenon, but rather we are physically intervening in the state of quantum coherence, which causes the collapse of the wave function — JuanZu
It is not the creation of novel particles it is just normal light waves such as are all around us, and seeing how the electrons that comprise the light waves exist in a state of uncertainty as probability waves until observed / detected. — ken2esq
Bottom line is, this is the only explanation that resolves Fermi's Paradox. — ken2esq
It seems to me that there is a confusion about what "measurement" means. When we measure [for our case in the process of wave function collapse] we are not “Becoming aware” of a phenomenon, but rather we are physically intervening in the state of quantum coherence, which causes the collapse of the wave function. Introducing consciousness as the cause of quantum decoherence or wave function collapse is a very common error in interpretations of quantum physics: Transcategorical Error. This error consists of introducing notions and concepts that in fact do not and cannot operate in scientific practice.
That is why, taking the above into consideration, instead of using the notions of consciousness and the like, which are rather confusing, we should prefer to describe the phenomenon as the moment in which an isolated or closed system opens up for the environment to intervene. . This frees us from believing that the physical world is in a state of permanent decoherence waiting to be "perceived" so that it acquires the classical properties of physics. In a certain sense it is like saying that the universe measures itself, but this measurement is nothing more than the moment in which the environment intervenes in a closed and coherent system. — JuanZu
This artificial situation is not at all natural, because such closed systems do not actually exist naturally — Metaphysician Undercover
how, or where, does the energy which is lost to entropy escape the parameters of "the closed system" — Metaphysician Undercover
our failed attempts to create such a "closed system" demonstrate to us, through the use of the scientific method and inductive reasoning, that such a theory, that there is a thing which could be known as "an isolated or closed system" has actually been demonstrated to be false — Metaphysician Undercover
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.