as a byproduct of consciousness itself. — ArtM

Thank you for your time and thoughts!

I agree one hundred percent with your questions - "This also raises the question of what happens to the self during sleep or after death. Is there even a 'me' or is it all illusion? What difference would it make if there were 100 billion humans or just one? And what makes humans so different from other animals here on Earth?"

This must be thought through, I think at the moment we're having a hard time to determine and differentiate the reality. I came across this example somewhere, can’t remember exactly where, but it stuck with me - "Imagine two twins inside their mother’s womb. For them, that environment is everything, warm, safe, familiar. Over time, it creates the illusion that their entire existence is just that space. Now, let’s say, hypothetically one of the twins is terrified to leave the womb, convinced that anything beyond it is death, the end of everything they know. But of course, we know that leaving the womb is actually the beginning of their real life, an entirely new level of existence they simply couldn’t comprehend from their limited perspective inside. What seems to be the end of something (life) for the babies, it turns out to be the beginning of everything."

This puts in perspective so much about life and how paradoxical it can feel at certain moments, but the experiences hidden beyond our present experience might just be the beginning of everything.

I think I clearly understand your point. But, I was trying to give a different perspective on the whole thing. What I was offering is a broader, maybe more radical perspective on the entire thing.

In my hypothesis, consciousness isn’t just an emergent property of biological systems, it’s the very foundation of reality itself. You could equate it to what many traditions have referred to as God, but stripped of religious dogma, simply the primordial, formless awareness that exists beyond space, time, and physical laws.

Consciousness in my hypothesis is a reference to God. Therefore, making it the first dimension, putting it above all other dimensions.

If we frame consciousness this way, as the first dimension, preceding all others, it resolves a lot of classic philosophical dilemmas, including "How can God exist everywhere, simultaneously?" It becomes clear when you see consciousness not as something within reality, but as the fundamental backdrop behind it.

That perspective also reshapes how we think about time. What you're calling "subjective time" (human perception of time passing) and "fundamental time" (the measurable, external progression of events) aren't actually separate. If consciousness precedes the universe, then even "fundamental time" emerges as a byproduct of consciousness itself. Without consciousness, what I'm calling the first dimension, there is no frame of reference for time to exist, whether on a cosmic scale or within personal experience.

Human experience being the subjective time, and consciousness (God) being the fundamental time, which would explain why things would still happen instantaneously for human experience (subjective time) and also explain that time is fundamentally a byproduct of consciousness, as without God's existence (Consciousnesses existence) there wouldn't be a time existing.

In that sense, time exists because consciousness exists. Without it, even fundamental time collapses into meaninglessness.

I have never seen someone insist on a specific statement, when I literally tried explaining the difference between changes occurring and time passage.

I will not be engaging with you anymore, since I'm under the impression you're looking for someone to argue with, and you're continuously ignoring what the other one has to say.

Everything is an assumption when it comes to the genesis of our existence. You can barely find any facts.

Really, so if you were the only conscious being in the world, and you woke up after a Thirty years, you would be able to tell that Thirty years have passed? You must be different.

I don't think that you're trying to understand at all. I already answered what you're saying several times, even during the hypothesis.

Anyways, this is my hypothesis, you're welcome to have yours.

Time seems to pass during sleep only because there are still other conscious beings around observing and measuring it. But if you were the only conscious being in existence, you’d go to sleep and wake up instantly, no awareness, no memory, no perception of time passing. Without consciousness, there's no experience of duration. Change can occur, yes, but change alone doesn't equal time. Time is the lens through which consciousness experiences change. Without that lens, there's no passage, just events.

If changes occur constantly, but there's no consciousness around, wouldn't that change be instantaneous?

Anyways, thank you for pointing it out. I will take notes! :)

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the confusion here lies in equating change with time, they're not the same thing.

Yes, a person in a coma for 10 years will age. Cells break down, muscles atrophy, nails grow, all measurable changes. But those changes aren't time itself. Time, as we experience and define it, isn’t just a sequence of changes, it’s the conscious awareness of those changes.

While that person is in a coma, others who remain conscious are the ones perceiving the passage of time, watching the calendar flip, the seasons change, the body age. Their consciousness gives structure to those changes, it gives time a context.

But here’s the twist, what if no one was conscious at all? No one to observe, to track, to experience? In such a scenario, those changes would still technically happen, but they would happen without a timeline, without memory, and without anticipation. They would occur in an instant, or rather, in no time at all. There would be no experienced passage, just transformation.

That’s the point, change is objective, but time is experiential. Without consciousness to experience it, the concept of time loses all meaning. It's not that "nothing happens," it's that without a conscious mind to interpret the "happening," there is no passage, no before or after, just a state, and then another.

I'm really glad you took the time to engage so deeply with the ideas. I resonate with nearly everything you've written, especially your reflections on how STEM culture often distances itself from anything that isn't measurable or material. I’ve noticed the same, many people in the sciences treat meaning, intuition, or inner experience as noise instead of signal, as if reality stops where the microscope lens ends.

Your comment on how science has become a kind of secular religion hit home. It feels like we've traded one set of unquestionable dogmas for another. There’s a sense of pride in “not believing,” which is ironic, considering how much belief is required to fully commit to purely materialist assumptions, especially when it comes to the origins of the universe, consciousness, and what happens after death. The truth is, no one knows for sure, and if they claim to, they’ve likely stopped thinking.

I also appreciated your thoughts on death and idealism. The materialist conclusion, that consciousness arises from meat and vanishes forever at death, feels not just grim, but also logically incomplete. If consciousness is fundamental, then death becomes not a disappearance, but a transition, maybe a return. And like you said, while that’s not evidence in itself, it’s no less reasonable than the view that all this is random and accidental.

Your final take on the Anthropic Principle was beautifully put. I agree completely, a universe that is unperceived is indistinguishable from one that never existed. If we experience reality, then consciousness is not just an observer, it may be the very fabric that gives reality form. I’ve often said, “What’s the point of a cosmos with no one to witness it?”

We’re all still piecing this together, but I think that’s the point. Truth isn’t behind a locked door with a single key, it’s a process, a pursuit. And like you, I think the synthesis between science, philosophy, and spiritual insight is not only possible, but necessary.

I think you're referring to subjective experience of time and the source of time itself. I think along my hypothesis you can find examples where the absence of consciousness makes the passage of time completely unperceivable, almost as if it collapses entirely. In a way, we're the only known living species to be able to experience both consciousness and unconsciousness during our lifespan and having the ability to express it, explain it, and describe it for others to understand. Both states have one thing in common, existence, but the experience is fundamentally different. What I mean by this is, we exist in both states, but the unconscious individual doesn't experience the time, as the conscious observer. This isn't only subjective experience of time, it in fact, demonstrates that time is only a byproduct of a specific conscious being. If consciousness ceased to exist, would the asteroid and other physical objects experience time? Or, would just changes occur to their bodies and surroundings?

Dependency on awareness means that time would not require a state of awareness (consciousness) for it to exist. Meaning, time should be independent from consciousness if it's a dimension of its own. But, my hypothesis states that time is just a byproduct of consciousness, and not a dimension of its own, therefore, time depends on awareness, without it there's just instantaneous changes that occur without the waiting period in between, making time inconsistent and reliant to the existence of consciousness (dependency on awareness).

"Dependency on awareness" means that if time were truly a fundamental dimension, it would exist and operate independently of any conscious observer. It wouldn’t require a state of awareness (consciousness) to function. But my hypothesis argues the opposite, that time is not a self-contained dimension, but rather a byproduct of consciousness.

I'm so glad to see the growth of "Idealism" as you've mentioned. I think people not only are waking up to it, but it's almost undeniable, since it's considered empirical evidence. Even though empirical evidence is not supported by science, us humans experience it first hand. Therefore, we don't chase trying to prove something that is being experienced simultaneously by thousands up to millions of people. Thus, consciousness is becoming a serious topic even for some famous metaphysicist, especially trying to understand a byproduct of what could consciousness be.

When it comes to Anthropic Principle, I personally have the opposite point of view. I think that the universe was created due to consciousness being present beforehand. Some like to refer to it as God, and some as Energy, some even as Universe, but fundamentally science seems to lack logical explanation when it comes to Universe's creation. If something came out of nothing (Big Bang Theory), then automatically, death is not the end for human beings, and in fact there will never be an end even for universe, because if something can come out of nothing, then there will always be something coming out of nothing, and existing or also known as an endless existence. But, based on our knowledge and empirical evidence, there has to be something in order for something else to come to life, and in my opinion, consciousness has existed long before anything else. Is it God? Could be. Is it Energy? Also could be. But, I'm certain consciousness is the fundamental dimension of any existence. This is contradictory with the above written hypothesis, but if I'd delve deeper to explain the details of my thought pattern on this matter, it would make sense.

My hypothesis supports the fact that death in either case is not the end. Regardless of the conclusion on how universe was created, death seems to be just a transitioning phase for humans and other living beings that possess consciousness. In a way I think that - Consciousness is not a byproduct of the universe, it is the source of it.

As you mentioned, "in an unrealised universe, birth and death may as well happen in the same instant", I couldn’t agree more. It really does feel like they happen all at once.

What I think is fundamentally flawed in today’s philosophy, physics, and religion is their refusal to coexist or even complement one another. They don't need to fully agree all the time, but when a philosophical idea leans toward something spiritual or religious, I don’t see why people are so quick to rebrand it as just “energy” instead of calling it what it might simply be: God. Or the other way around.

From what I’ve been observing, science has almost become a religion of its own, often dismissive, even arrogant, toward anything that doesn’t fit its framework. If something can’t be proven in a lab, it’s instantly labeled as false, no matter how real or widespread the human experience of it may be. Too many scientists seem too eager to ignore or invalidate empirical evidence simply because it doesn’t come wrapped in formulas and peer-reviewed studies.

I don't think you quite understand the concept. The consciousness isn't physical presence only, it is energy as well. If there wasn't any energy of consciousness around then it'd make it instantaneous. For example, how did the first explosion happen? In my opinion what people label as God could also be interpreted as consciousness. Which, in a way supports the way that things were created by someone.

No in fact, there was consciousness around you that has been able to track the changes, if there was no consciousness around, the change would be instantaneous, making time irrelevant, and making it just a byproduct of consciousness.