They might or might not exist in real life. — Lionino

So they might exist, good enough for me.

What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves?
— ken2esq

No-one ever observes a probability wave, because it’s a mathematical function that describes the distribution of probabilities. What happens when an observation is made is that those probabilities ‘collapse’ into a precise measurement. — Wayfarer

Geez, nitpicky much? That is what I meant. Saying when you look at a probability wave it collapses or when you observe a probability wave it collapses seems pretty irrelevant to my arguments. I would suggest you not get distracted by irrelevant semantics (relevant semantics are fine). But, despite that, thanks for the tip on keeping my language clean. I did think of your point and caught myself in other writings, but maybe after writing the above.

Ken

"No, because you have to present a logical argument first."
Lol, that is so wrong-headed! What if I did present a logical argument? The way you show I did NOT present a logical argument is by showing how it is illogical, by dismantling the actually assumptions and or extrapolations therefrom. The conclusory "that's not a logical argument" skips all the NECESSARY steps to support your conclusion.

EVERY argument which has an opponent necessarily is viewed as an ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT by the opponent, but they do not get to say just "that's illogical" as their rebuttal. Seriously, explain a debate with opposing sides where both sides AGREE the other's side is LOGICAL. You cannot do it.

Christopher Hutchins debating theists...he did not think they had a logical argument. Did he therefore say it was impossible to address their arguments?

You position is so absurd...

This is literally the HEART and MEAT of philosophical debate, dismantling -- in detail, with exactitude -- why the opposing view IS illogical. To claim you are free from that because the other side is somehow a priori illogical is just nonsense.

Please, I beg of you, defend that position. Defend the logic of your assertion that an illogical argument merits NO rebuttal, that we only rebut LOGICAL arguments. I REALLY want to hear how you will rationalize stating such an obviously false position. Will you blame drugs? exhaustion? brain fart? being under the control of a super-conscious organization that does not want you to see the logic of my arguments and so puts really really stupid words in your mouth? (I'm partial to the last, by the way, do not blame you but that which controls you.)

Ken

Calling something "nonsensical illogic" is not a logical argument. Cite one of my assumptions or my extrapolations therefrom, as I admittedly then proceed out on a limb pretty far in some cases, and show me where I started with an inherently flawed assumption or set of assumptions, or where I took a wrong step on any extrapolation, where I should have taken a step in a different direction down a different limb.

Your close-minded rejection is the OPPOSITE of philosophy and logic. Just a child saying "No it isn't!"

Ken

You are correct that Christianity is bad for education. But don't you see this is intentional? Smart, logical, and well-educated people, who avoid logical fallacies, would immediately realized the Christian mythic stories are false, would reject the religion to become agnostic, or Taoist or something, or atheist.

All life forms want to survive. Organizations are conscious life forms (see hive mind, see my posts on super-conscious beings). We unite in a common identity and birth a higher order of intelligence that we are linked to, and it wants to grow and survive, and will manipulate its "parts" (the humans that comprise its body, who unite under that identity) to defend itself from death. Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. It must to survive. It dominates our politics (since most politicians identify as Christian) enough to basically have carte blanche over our educational system.

Ken

It is absolutely NOT a very big if. Did you look at the studies on hive mind / consciousness of a hive of bees? Scientists now believe a hive of bees IS a singular, intelligent consciousness, not just the imitation of one. So if bees -- not touching, separate creatures, no physical connection, no mass brain -- give rise by being in same group, same hive, to an intelligent, conscious hive mind, how the heck do you claim it is a big "if" to suggest the VERY SAME THING happens to people?

The big "if" is that humans are DIFFERENT from what we observe. When we see that a drug causes cancer in mice, our first assumption is NOT that it does NOT cause cancer in humans because we are not mice. Our assumption is that it DOES therefore likely cause cancer in us, too.

You are the one who has the weaker logical position, and needs to explain why your starting assumption is we are immune from the hive mind effect that we understand now exists in bees.

Also, do you really think "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck" is illogical? Is unsound? That it is better to think "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably some complex set of natural forces that just looks a lot like a duck but is not." Because if you look at how social groups and identies behave in a coordinated fashion, seek to grow and survive, etc., you will see they actually LOOK and ACT exactly as you would expect from a singular intelligent consciousness. So why do we think it is unsound to start with the assumption, "okay, maybe they are a singular intelligent consciousness" rather than "no, they cannot be, how nuts to think that."

You are on very thin ice for a philosopher.

Ken

So? Your inability to see is not my problem. Tell me the illogic. What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves?

Tell you what: Google Schroedinger's cat, read up on the concept of probability waves being intrinsic to reality. You seem to be bereft of basic science to claim probability waves are "magic."

Ken

I will agree the supposition on how I have explained Fermi's paradox with the theory that our observations including scientific study of unknowns thereby are creating the universe from our expectations, so that we are actually the oldest part of the universe and the older parts are just what we expected to find when we looked that way, is very thin ice. Probably the most thin of any of it. I'm kind of rejecting it myself.

I still think the theory we are not just eyes of a conscious self-creating universe, but are its tools of creation, is the most reasonable to reconcile what we observe, at least justifies why observation collapses wave probabilities into particles, explains our purpose in life, to expand into the unobserved universe while developing our creativity so we can, when we observe the unobserved and there by create reality, we are doing so with with style.

Note, our CREATIVITY is agreed by all to be a virtue. Why? Why do we love make believe? Fantasy? Movies? The urge to create -- to be creative, not just to build any uninspired, repetitive crap -- seems fundamental to us.

Ken

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 -- all of which are complete speculation, regardless how long they've been around, with no actual evidence -- and then some one suggests a single theory that explains all of them, though the single theory has no scientific proof, its greater simplicity gives it greater credence, all else being equal.

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.

Ken

You are making such a fundamental mistake.

How can you even ask, "How can organizations be conscious without us?" What part of WE ARE EQUIVALENT TO CELLS ON THE BODY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS do you not understand? That is like asking how we can be conscious without our cells. No one is SAYING they are conscious without us. We are them, the same way trees are the forest. They are NOT without us.

We are living because our parts are organic and alive. If an organization consists of a collection of human beings, human beings who are organic and alive, in what way are you failing to see that they are equally alive?

Watch the video at the top on collective intelligence. Human intelligence is exactly the same as the intelligence of cells, tissues, organs and organizations, they are all just on different magnitudes of complexity. We are on a fractal ladder of life forms wherein we are NOT the king of the mountain. What the heck kind of egotistical hubris!! What are the odds we are so damn special? Really? That is your logical argument? That humans are just really really special and unique? You want a trophy? Maybe consider what if we ARE NOT the epitome of ascendance in the universe, but just cogs in the machine, just midlevel lackeys? Seriously, the assumptions you people make on here. The logical fallacies you throw out left and right... Review the standard list of logical fallacies and try to avoid them.

Ken

No. Computers are intelligent but not conscious.

Ken

What scientific study did you cite for that claim about why priests molest children? If they accepted a religious "calling" that is the superconscious entity for that religion demanding they surrender their free will, and at that point they are automatons, and can be made to do inhumane things that no human would do.

Question: Why would a human molest a small child, which seems utterly abhorrent by all human standards?
Answer: They would not, it was a higher consciousness that views us as we view ants that took over control of that human.
See, this theory answers questions as to how certain people can to such seemingly inhumane things.

Ken

Let me try a different approach.

Consider climate change. I believe it threatens human existence and we are headed to extinction because we are failing to take the necessary steps to become sustainable on this planet. We are committing species suicide through apathy. I think many agree with me, to the point people are defacing great works of art to call attention to this. By one account, 97% of climate scientists agree we face imminent extinction unless we immediately do FAR MORE than we are doing.

Yet, about half of Americans, the conservatives, argue we should IGNORE the issue because the have heard that at least a few climate scientists disagree and say we are fine, this is just solar activity, and also some conservative pundits have suggested that this is all a money grab by those greedy climate scientists. We all know how greedy climate scientists are, not like those trustworthy fossil fuel corporations.

My brother is in the conservative camp and after going around with him over and over on this, I finally came up with what I felt was the ultimate "winning" argument which is this:

Let's ASSUME that we simply DO NOT KNOW if humanity is or is not threatened with imminent extinction unless we immediately and radically reduce and stop our use of fossil fuels and convert to clean energy sources. Neither he nor I are climate scientists. To us, this is all hearsay. So, the real question is not whether climate change is a real and imminent extinction threat or a harmless and exaggerated result of solar flare activity, the REAL question is this:

In the absence of certainty whether all humanity will go extinct in a century or so unless we convert immediately to clean energy, what is the prudent and reasonable course of action?

If a doctor tells you that you will die unless you get a lump removed and another doctor tells you that it is harmless and you keep going to doctors and they keep saying the opposite of the doctor before, so after going to 10 doctors,3 say it is harmless and 7 say you will die if it is not removed. And removing it is NOT a life-threatening surgery, but it is expensive and inconvenient. Do you get it removed or not? Of course you do.

The fact is, if we do NOT act as if the extinction threat is real, and we are wrong, the result is extinction of humanity preceded by decades of the worst human suffering in all of history, suffering and death of our children and grandchildren.

And if we DO act as if the extinction threat is real, and convert immediately from fossil fuel to clean energy, there will be a lot of big changes in how we live, though that may only be temporary while we increase our clean energy resources. But no matter how inconvenient, no matter the adversity that results, it is infinitely less than the the harm of total extinction of humanity. PLUS we have the "silver lining" that we now have oceans where the fish are not all dying out and going extinct or becoming too toxic to eat, and we now have clean air, and the world is just a much cleaner and more beautiful. PLUS it is established that fossil fuels will run out, and we WILL eventually have to switch to renewable energy anyway. So this is a change we'll need to face anyway.

Ultimately, in the ABSENCE of certainty which scientists and pundits are right, the only reasonable approach is to treat the threat as real.

If organization are intelligent, conscious beings just one step up the fractal life ladder, and thus are like any life, mortal, imperfect, desiring survival and growth and caring very little about life forms on lower levels of the ladder, and they can influence or sometimes dictate human behavior, then you turn to consideration of what such an entity might do if progress endangers its existence, or if avoiding extinction by climate change requires its death, it seems those beings would imperil human survival if let them eke out a bit more time alive. That explains why humanity is dragging its feet on ending its use of fossil fuels and converting to renewable energy. The conscious religious organizations need to keep people stupid, uneducated, illogical, anti-science and anti-reason to survive, but that is also why the refuse to accept the truth of climate disaster. The fossil fuel corporations need to keep us using fossil fuels because they die when we convert to clean energy. If there is a chance these things exist as I theorize -- which is not contradicted by any science, nor any logic or reason, but rather seems to follow basic rules of logical extension -- which threatens our extinction if true, maybe ACT as if it is true, try it on for size, take it for a test spin before just summarily rejecting it.

If I'm wrong, just another woo-woo theory like scientology or Christianity.

Ken

Put in work to relate it? Freud literally posited a subconscious, conscious and superconscious Id, Ego and Superego. He literally defined Superego as societal influences. Which is ONLY different from my theory of Super Conscious organizations influencing us for their own self-interest, to the extent he never conceived that groups of people could be intelligent beings. Yet the youtube video I linked above is scientific evidence that they are, that collective intelligence exists at every fractal level of united life, from cells in our body to organizations of people.

How is it so hard to see the obvious analogy that as we are comprised of living cells, so our organizations are comprised of living organisms? Our organizations have an organic body -- people are organic matter -- and they have something better than neurons. They have the BRAINS of the people within them.

Suggesting that organizations are not truly alive or intelligent because they do not have neurons or all their organic matter is not bound together into a physical singularity, is akin to a cell in my body arguing that there's no way the human being it is part of could be intelligent or conscious because, hey look, that human has no nucleus! He has no cellular membrain! No way could he be conscious, what a crazy notion, he is just acting out in analogous to intelligence, but is not really intelligent, just the result of the decisions and actions of the individual cells that comprise him! It's a flawed argument if our cells make it about us, and equally flawed if you make it about organizations.

Look, did you ever hear anyone suggest that there is no alien life anywhere in the Universe but Earth, and you thought, wow, what INCREDIBLE hubris. I mean, set aside any other argument or logic or reason, but to think we are so special, so unique...it's inherently a BAD starting assumption.

In the absence of knowledge, your STARTING ASSUMPTION should be that the unknown is LIKE the known, not unlike it. If I go to an Island no person has been to and see a human there I don't know, I should not ASSUME he likes to eat rocks and sit on scorpions. The most reasonable STARTING position is the he is similar to me. Yes, it will not be completely right. I may go to shake his hand and in his culture it is an insult so he hits me. Sure. But does that mean instead of going to shake his hand, you knee him in the balls figuring that might be how his people say hello, because even if you would hate that, he's different, so maybe he likes it. Is that a sound approach to applying reason to the unknown?

Of course not. In the absence of knowledge, you extrapolate from the known to the unknown as your starting assumption / theory. Try to falsify THAT FIRST before making assumptions the unknown is NOT like the known. Seriously, this is basic stuff.

So if I am alive, and I am also conscious and intelligent, and I notice my cells are alive, should my starting assumption be that they are NOT conscious or intelligent? How about the universe. I'm conscious. I don't know if the Universe is or not...should my STARTING assumption be that it is not or that we live in conscious universe?

Hmm. Organizations are made of living organisms the same as humans are made of living cells. I am conscious...Should my starting assumption be that organizations are NOT conscious? Hmm.. Well, regardless, the science supports collective intelligence of organizations. Even if it did not, this is really the better starting assumption in the absence of evidence either way.

Ken

How is me suggesting that when conscious, intelligent life forms at any level. of the hierarchy - single cells, organs, people, etc. -- unite to form a larger entity, that that larger entity then that births a new singular identity in that unity, a higher consciousness. Gee, that seems to be the whole becoming greater than the parts. Your suggestion that the whole is greater than the parts seems to actually support my theory.

Ken

No evidence our cells are intelligent?!!! I literally linked above a Youtube video by a SCIENTIST explaining how he had discovered that cells, tissues, organs, organisms and organizations all display collective intelligence that is all the same thing, albeit in different orders of magnitude in complexity. You are literally claiming that you know FOR SURE, as fact, that cell are not intelligent when we both know you have not ONE IOTA of actually scientific proof for this, not one argument to show this is the most logical assumption to make. You literally are insisting it is true because YOU have always assumed this was true and never heard anyone suggest otherwise. That is your application of logic? SMH...

Ken

No, it actually doesn't. How does the presence of fractals in both living and inanimate structures present a flaw in my suggestion that consciousness is also fractal?

The State is just one superconscious entity. No logical reason ANY organization of people would not have a similar super consciousness. If you suggest this is true because Hobbes said it, you are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Ken

appreciate the feedback, I'll work on these issues. But the link above to Youtube IS to scientific evidence that intelligence is collective and fractal. You repeatedly say there is no evidence for this, but that is just wrong.

Moreover, there is no evidence AGAINST this. Where is the paper demonstrating the organizations are NTO intelligent or conscious? Or that cells are not?? It does not exist. Do you require some one to make an argument to establish that cells are not intelligent or conscious if they suggest that they are not at the outset of their post? If not, that is not rooted in logic, but is an appeal to authority, the notion that something is more likely true simply because people have believed it longer WITHOUT a shred of evidence or logic supporting that.

Ken

I don't think you understand the double slit experiment at all. 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. There is literally NO QUESTION that light waves and their electrons exist outside the laboratory. I'm not sure what the heck you are even talking about. I'm not sure you know.

Yes, conceptualization of reality are lacking. So I'm literally GIVING YOU ONE that reconciles EVERYTHING. A unifying theory of realty that reconciles quantum physics and the double-slit experiment, the fractal nature of reality all around us, why daily affirmations and vision boards and similar affirmation / visualization techniques seem to work, WHY we live in a universe where there are probability waves that observation will collapse into particular reality -- anyone else come up with a conceptualization that answers that? Any other spiritual concept or religion answer that? No? I did not think so.

Yes, the Universe is a mystery, and we have very limited ability conceptualize it. So what? Are you suggestion we do not try? We do not try to improve upon our utterly flaws and pointless past conceptualizations that are so inconsistent with things we observe in the Universe? Your whole philosophical approach seems to be pessimistic defeatism. Is that accidental, or is that literally your point of view?

Ken

Calling something nonsense is not a logical or philosophical argument.

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. Heck, it may be the most scientific of metaphysical postulations. Surely more logical than Christianity or Hinduism or Greek mythology.

So, the notion of a conscious universe is not my wild speculation, nor that we are parts of it observing itself. I merely add the suggestion that we are not conscious fragments of a conscious universe merely playing in the finished universe; rather, we are in the midst of that very act of creation and are actually the tools of that creation, the eyes, ears, limbs of the creator.

Look, let's agree on this if we can:
For theists (those who believe in any sort of intelligent creator, whether it is the conscious universe and we are part of it, or it is a separate being, separate from us and the universe it created), there are two main schools of thought for how the Universe was created:

(1) God basically waved a magic wand and instantaneously (well, within a week), created the entire Universe in its entirety.

(2) The universe itself is a conscious singularity, all matter and life are parts of it, humans are akin to cells on its body, neurons of its brain, eyes on the ground for it, etc, and this conscious universe is responsible for the laws of physics and initial location of matter and energy which led to the Big Bang and expanding Universe, and the Universe we live in is physically complete, but still expanding and changing without any further divine intervention. Basically, to the extent we are fragments of the conscious universe, we are playing in a finished sand box.

I am suggesting what seems a quite reasonable compromise between these two views, nothing crazy or unimaginable. Simply that both are partially true. The latter school of thought is correct that the universe is conscious. The former school of thought is correct that this "god" if you will is intentionally creating the entire universe, not just leaving its creation up the laws of physics. Quantum physics shows that conscious observation CREATES physicality from observation of probability waves, which frankly is the closest science has come to finding anything that appears at all like an act of divine creation.

So why NOT consider that instead of waving his and and creating the entire universe, God or the conscious singularity could not, or chose not, to create the universe in six days or the blink of an eye, but instead is creating it over hundreds of billions of years. Why not consider that a diety might take trillions of years to create the universe and as it does, that means that there is part of the Universe that is already created, and part of the Universe yet to be created. Hmmm...what would the part of the Universe that awaits being turned into a particular physical reality look like...... Hmmm.. We don't know, but what is the BEST GUESS based on our science? Probability waves.

The theory that the Universe is being actively created by a conscious singularity through the process of expanding observation of a surrounding, seemingly infinite, ocean of probability waves is not crazy speculation. It is literally application of Occam's Razor and reason and the most current science to improve on past, less advanced theories of metaphysical truth.

No, my theory is NOT "true." Of course not. But I believe it is MORE TRUE than anything yet postulated. It explains Fermi's paradox. It is consistent with the fractal nature of reality. It actually EXPLAIN why the double slit experiment showed what it showed about observation collapsing probabiliy waves into particular reality. Who else has a spiritual or metaphysical theory or even a scientific theory that explains WHY this exists like this?

Seriously, even if this theory were entirely wrong, it still deserves kudos for finding a logical way to wrap up all these scientific loose ends into a fairly basic new age spirituality.

And, yes, the WHOLE THING is a theory, based on the fact we observe things in nature that we cannot reconcile. Well, genius, THIS RECONCILES THEM. That is the point. Find one thing science has observed in nature that this does NOT reconcile!! If a theory reconciles our observations and no other theory does, then what does that mean? You reject it because it is new? Seriously?

This is philosophy, not a hard science. It's not physics. But if you cannot find any place where my theory is inconsistent with reality, the way a person walking on water is inconsistent, and you cannot think of any BETTER explanation of why observation collapses probability waves into particular certainty, you probably should not be so casually dismissive of this.

I will agree there is one really seemingly crazy suggestion offered here: That when a conscious observer looks at a place where there had been probability waves, and thereby collapses them into a particular physical reality, I suggest that the form this reality takes is based on the expectation of that observer. So wherever there is quantum uncertainty, when we collapse it, we CHOOSE what it collapses into.

This seems crazy because it seems to give us a bit of magical power. However, FIRST, I will point out that the notion we, as fragments of a conscious creator, have a spark of divine creative power, is very popular and widely accepted, and it is actually the working theory for why daily affirmations, vision boards, and other forms of affirmative thinking seems to miraculous work. If you believe in it. I did not until coming up with this theory which now reconciles THAT effect too, if that is real. Yes, thank you, I'll take a bow. But also, as a second point, if we are conscious fragments of a divine creator, we are its eyes on the ground, why would we NOT be its eyes ON THE FRONT LINE as well as its AGENTS OF CREATION ON THE FRONT LINE. Is this crazier than thinking that, instead, we were just created for the Universe to masturbate within its fully finished Universe? Frankly, my theory fills in whole SHITLOAD of "why is like this?" "and why would this be like this?" It provides answers that, though not proven, are also PERFECTLY REASONABLE. Name any other spiritual conceptualization that does that. You cannot.

Again, I am 100% sure my theory is wrong, that it is incomplete, oversimplified, and/or partially inaccurate. But if you consider what I am reconciling with this theory, the "why" questions it actually answers rather than just talking about divine ineffability, I think you must agree it is not something to be just readily dismissed for lack of "proof" What the hell religious or spiritual conceptualization are you hiding that has any of this "proof" you seem to crave? None? That's what I thought.

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???

Ken

No. We are all fragments of a larger observing consciousness, fragments of it. We are its eyes on the front lines of creation. What any of us sees, it thereby sees and creates. How would any of this mean that you individually need to see me before I exist for you?

If you consider that each human being is part of one creature with 8 billion eyes, and when that creature looks at probability waves, even with just one of those eyes, it collapses them, and out of the probabilities it could collapse to, it becomes that which the observing eye expected, that would be closer.

This is simplified since, in fact, humans are just one run on the ladder of life and conscious observation. Cells, tissues, organs, other organisms, organizations, all are conscious observers, fractals of the creative observer consciousness.

Bottom line is, this is the only explanation that resolves Fermi's Paradox. It also is not INCONSISTENT with anything we observe, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for other metaphysical ideas.

People continue to struggle with the ramifications of the double-slit quantum experiment revealing how the act of observation collapses a probability wave into a particle. However, one thing we keep seeing is the fractal nature of reality. Thus, consider women and men, and how much they embody the quantum duality of waves and particles. Men are like a rock, women like ocean waves. You think it is coincidence this poetically parallels the quantum duality? Or would it make more sense to consider if this is not coincidence, then it means the quantum duality is reflected in the macro universe. And if you extend that, it may be the ultimate duality of the universe. Not good vs. evil. Probability wave vs. particular certainty. And what force have SCIENTISTS shown collapses waves into particles? Conscious observation...

It's almost as if observation is a creative force.... It is almost as if probability waves are waiting for conscious observation to collapse into a particular reality. Oh, wait, that is literally EXACTLY what the science says.

- ken