A Conscious Universe

[bennyboy]

By what criteria do you differentiate from this view, which is supposed to be descriptive of physical reality, from an idealistic reality, in which these things we cannot see are considered only universal (forgive the apparent equivocation) expressions of ideas?

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by idealistic reality?

Yes. It's a reality which is reducible to ideas which cannot be expressed unambiguously as things.

As the OP mentions, the dual nature of a photon is hard to comprehend in terms of a physical monism. However, in an ideal monism, ambiguity is fine-- so long as the DEFINITION is not ambiguous. "Light is both a particle and a wave" renders light unrenderable in any understandable physical framework, but it's no problem as an idea.

The same goes for the other elephant in the room: mind. It's not sensibly expressed in physical terms, although you can wave at the brain and insist it's in there somewhere; there's not even a really plausible mechanism for subjective awareness right now. However, the physical universe as an idea works fine, since that's how we experience it anyway.

[Alex K]

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by idealistic reality?

Yes. It's a reality which is reducible to ideas which cannot be expressed unambiguously as things.

Mhm.

As the OP mentions, the dual nature of a photon is hard to comprehend in terms of a physical monism. However, in an ideal monism, ambiguity is fine-- so long as the DEFINITION is not ambiguous. "Light is both a particle and a wave" renders light unrenderable in any understandable physical framework, but it's no problem as an idea.

I'd like to contest that.

[robvalue]

Very interesting.

Personally, consciousness is a huge mystery to me and it is entangled in the problem of solipsism. Like (almost) everyone else I take the pragmatic approach to solipsism, but when it comes down to it, I ain't got shit. I don't know what "I" am, if I am anything at all, whether I'm just an observer, whether anything is real, what real means, whether anyone else has consciousness like I appear to... All I "know" is what I can sense and deduce, and that is never going to be conclusive. I am very far from convinced that anything I experience is even remotely real. And I'm sure I never will.

My scientific side leads me to believe consciousness is an illusion, some sort of manifestation of the inner workings of the brain, but it's not a real thing. It's like a side effect. But the "me" that actually experiences my consciousness finds this absurd, because the consciousness is literally all I have to work with. I don't know if I'll ever resolve that either, probably not.

[bennyboy]

As the OP mentions, the dual nature of a photon is hard to comprehend in terms of a physical monism. However, in an ideal monism, ambiguity is fine-- so long as the DEFINITION is not ambiguous. "Light is both a particle and a wave" renders light unrenderable in any understandable physical framework, but it's no problem as an idea.

I'd like to contest that.

I look forward to your contestation.

[robvalue]

It's both a blessing and a curse to have the kind of mind that analyzes itself to the point where you're questioning if you're real at all.

[Alex K]

Mhm.

I'd like to contest that.

I look forward to your contestation.

In the many worlds interpretation, no wave function collapse occurs, and wave functions are things that actually exist in a sense. The wave and particle phenomena are two ways to describe the behavior of the photon wave function and the measurement apparatus in different experimental settings. I'm not saying that the MWI is true, I'm merely saying that such descriptions exist where we can trace the photon (and all other particles for that matter) back to something unique that is, as they like to say, ontological.

[robvalue]

Interpretations. That's about as far as I have got in my beginner's QM book so far. My mind is nothing like it once was, and I'm really struggling to get the concepts to even enter my head, let alone stay there.

I'm looking forward to the part where I find out it's all a practical joke.

[Ben Davis]

Sorry Fallen, it's one biiiig argument from ignorance, with muddied waters, followed by unsupported assertions of supernatural existence of & causes for consciousness.

Firstly, we must remember that there is only evidence (and plenty of it!) in support of the premise that consciousness is a function of brains. That's a major stumbling block for this piece as it means we're given no reason for considering an alternative causal paradigm in the first place. Since a physical explanation of consciousness has been so informative, and is increasingly so, there's no reason to assume that a different paradigm is necessary at all.

While it's true that neurology, studies of qualia etc. haven't yielded comprehensive answers to 'the big 3 questions' yet, they have yielded some answers and those answers have been powerful enough to tell us that we're on the right track. All that's needed is time, focussed effort and trust.

[Cato]

The idea is ludicrous. The author is attempting to resolve a gap in our knowledge of consciousness by invoking another consciousness that doesn't even have the merit of being demonstrable. Would not the cosmic consciousness suffer from the same problems of consciousness it is attempting to solve? Do we then invoke the idea of a super-cosmic consciousness to resolve the cosmic conscious problems?

Mathematics is a construct of human consciousness for modelling observed reality: a means of explanation and prediction. Inverting this relationship is far-fetched and has no basis in fact. The author has the burden of explanation if his/her 'mathematical structures' is to take a non-conventional meaning. My guess is that the author is employing the well known tactic of using scientific sounding language in an attempt to make the bizarre sound credible.

[FatAndFaithless]

The idea is ludicrous. The author is attempting to resolve a gap in our knowledge of consciousness by invoking another consciousness that doesn't even have the merit of being demonstrable. Would not the cosmic consciousness suffer from the same problems of consciousness it is attempting to solve? Do we then invoke the idea of a super-cosmic consciousness to resolve the cosmic conscious problems?

Mathematics is a construct of human consciousness for modelling observed reality: a means of explanation and prediction. Inverting this relationship is far-fetched and has no basis in fact. The author has the burden of explanation if his/her 'mathematical structures' is to take a non-conventional meaning. My guess is that the author is employing the well known tactic of using scientific sounding language in an attempt to make the bizarre sound credible.

Trying to solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.